[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 70 (Thursday, June 8, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4077-H4087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT of
2000
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 519 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 519
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the estate and gift
taxes over a 10-year period. The bill shall be considered as
read for amendment. The amendment recommended by the
Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the
bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
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, 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
[[Page H4078]]
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
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those in the gallery are reminded that
demonstrations of support or opposition are not allowed under the rules
of the House. The Chair appreciate your cooperation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my
dear friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues are doing their
level best to help the rich get richer. Today's Republican bill will
gradually repeal estate tax which affects the richest 2 percent of
Americans. By repealing it gradually, my Republican colleagues will
ensure that only the descendants of the very rich people who hold out
10 years before dying will benefit.
People who are not very rich or who die within the next 10 years do
not get any benefit out of this bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, the result of the Republican bill will be to benefit
a few very rich people. For a little while, it will cost the Government
$50 billion every year in lost revenue, and do nothing whatsoever to
make sure baby boomers have Social Security and Medicare when they
retire.
Mr. Speaker, as nearly everyone knows, Social Security and Medicare
are headed for some very serious problems. When the baby boomers retire
and we do not do something to shore it up now, there will be big
problems later.
Thanks to this rule, Mr. Speaker, there is hope. This rule makes in
order a Democratic substitute that will help people pass on their
estates and still retain hope of fixing Medicare and Social Security.
The Democratic bill takes effect now so people who want to pass
things along will not have to hold out for 10 years.
The Democratic bill says, if one's farm or business is worth up to $4
million, then one can pass it on immediately, without any estate tax
whatsoever.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute will cost the
Federal government much less in lost revenue. We will still be able to
hold out hope of saving Medicare. We will still be able to hold out
hope of saving Social Security, and not to mention the possibility of
enacting a prescription drug program.
Now, the Democratic motion to recommit goes even further, Mr.
Speaker. It makes in order the Doggett amendment to let the sunshine
into political committees. My Republican colleagues, twice in the
Committee on Ways and Means and once on the House floor, have decided
to keep political committees secret. My Republican colleagues want to
continue to allow political committees to raise and spend as much money
as they want in complete secret, Mr. Speaker.
But the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) says it
is time to lift up the shades and let the sunshine in. One cannot have
the gift tax if one does not disclose one's contributors.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer the Sherman-Stenholm
amendment which will make the repeal of the estate tax contingent upon
the President certifying that we are on the path to reduce the debt,
protect Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, when our time on Earth is done, we want to know that our
families and loved ones have been provided for and protected; we want
to know that our hard work and diligence over the years will continue
to positively affect those that we really care about.
Those who live the American dream, are successful in their
profession, and have the ability to save a little money want to pass
along the fruits of their labors on to their survivors. In Kansas and
throughout the country, our farmers and business owners are being
punished by the current tax system by following that dream.
The current death tax is in fact killing our family farms and
businesses. Less and less farmland and fewer and fewer businesses are
being passed along to our children and grandchildren due to this
unnecessary and unjust tax.
It has been said that the deterioration of every government begins
with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. If we look
back at history, we are reminded that the unfair taxation triggered the
revolution of 1776. We fought a war for freedom from such taxes. Mr.
Speaker, we must cast a vote to end this oppressive taxation that falls
heaviest on those who can least afford to pay it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me to vote yes on the rule
and vote yes on H.R. 8.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman), who is the co-author of the Sherman-Stenholm
amendment.
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, let us put this in context. This bill would
actually cut roughly $50 billion from Federal revenues once it is fully
phased in. It affects only 2 percent of the richest American families,
most of the taxes collected from those who have over $10 million in
assets. This bill provides not 1 penny in tax relief for those who make
$10 an hour, but total tax relief for those with assets of over $10
million.
We went to the Committee on Rules with the Sherman-Stenholm amendment
to say at least let us make this bill dependent upon the country being
on the right fiscal track. At least do not give up the $50 billion
unless Social Security and Medicare are secure, unless we are going to
pay down the debt by 2013, and unless we have eliminated deficits.
{time} 1600
And the Committee on Rules said no.
What is particularly severe is that just a few weeks ago this House
considered the Miller-Young bill, which would protect the legacy of all
Americans by providing roughly $1 billion, one-fiftieth of the cost of
this bill, $1 billion, to acquire the lands that are environmentally
sensitive and pristine and need to be protected for prosperity. And the
Shadegg amendment was allowed by the Committee on Rules, requiring that
protecting the legacy of all Americans to our great outdoors be
contingent upon these same certifications, namely that the debt would
be paid off by 2013 and Medicare and Medicaid would be secure.
So what we have here is a Committee on Rules that says, when we are
trying to protect the legacy of all Americans, they will allow an
amendment that limits that bill's effectiveness to only if certain
fiscal certifications can be made. But when we are talking about the
legacy of multimillionaires, literally heirs to multi-million dollar
fortunes, then fiscal responsibility is not even an issue that this
House can discuss on the floor.
I will point out that this bill will assure a dramatic cut in major
contributions to universities and hospitals. Those institutions will be
here asking for Federal help. We will not be able to give it to them
because $50 billion will be taken out every year of the funds available
to the Federal Government.
[[Page H4079]]
And, finally, this bill means higher taxes for widows and widowers.
Under the present law, widows and widowers pay no estate tax and get a
full step up in bases of the assets they acquire for income tax
purposes. Under this bill that step up in bases is severely limited. So
if my colleagues want to deprive the country of $50 billion and raise
taxes for widows that is what this bill and this rule would do.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
death tax repeal.
Small farmers that lose their farms or are challenged after they die
to pass it on to their children are giving them up.
My colleagues on the other side cannot stand any kind of tax cut
whatsoever. Their mantra is tax breaks for the rich. Well, in 1993,
when they had the White House, the House and the Senate, they had the
highest tax increase in history, they raised the tax on Social
Security, and they raised the tax on the middle class. They could not
help themselves, because they wanted to spend. They even stole every
dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund to put up here for extra
spending.
Any time we want to take away that right or that control, they fight
it. They fought a balanced budget because it limited their spending.
They fought welfare reform because it limited their spending. They
fought the Social Security lockbox because they used that money for
socialized spending. And now the mantra is tax breaks for the rich.
Well, the small farmers in my district in California are not the
rich.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
(Mr. CAPUANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I could speak all day long on why this
particular bill is a bad one and why this particular rule is a bad one,
but I think we will hear lots of debate on it. No one will come to this
well on either side asking that small businesses and small farmers be
overtaxed. I think everyone here would be happy to work on those two
issues. That is not the point, and everybody here knows it is not the
point.
This bill goes way beyond that. On top of that, it does an additional
thing no one seems to want to talk about. Many States in this country
raise lots of money through the estate tax. That is their choice.
Nobody makes them do it. Of our 50 States, 34 of them, plus the
District of Columbia, raise estate tax money solely on the Federal
income tax credit that is allowed for estate tax deductions. The
maximum amount allowed. That is all they raise their money on. The
taxpayer would have to pay the same amount of money no matter what, it
is just a matter of who they cut the check to.
Of those 35 States, right now approximately $4 billion a year are
raised out of that money; $1 billion in New York, $730 million in
California, $480 million in Florida, $180 million in Massachusetts,
$200 in Illinois, $200 million in Texas, $130 million in Arkansas, et
cetera. If this bill is passed, these States will lose that money.
Now, I understand fully well that there are philosophical
differences, but I ask the people that propose this bill to then turn
around and tell these States what they are going to do, how they are
going to help them to educate their children, to put police on the
street, and to do all the other things that States do. Because this
bill, the way it is written, will take that money out of those State
coffers.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would say to my colleagues that there has never been a tax
cut that we have discussed on the floor of this body where my friends
from the Democratic side of the aisle have not gotten up here and
talked about the revenue that we would lose and the parades of
horribles that would happen if we cut taxes on the American people.
The fact is we cut taxes in 1997, and revenues have increased $200
billion per year each year since then over and above what was projected
by the Congressional Budget Office. And I predict that if this goes
through, and it eventually will go through, we will see the economic
return; and, actually, we will have more revenue.
But I am up here to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a friend of mine from
Mississippi. He is not a small businessman, he is not a small farmer,
he is an agent of the Internal Revenue Service. I had a conversation
with him a while back, and he said, ``Congressman, I have been doing
this for a long time. You folks ought to go back up to Washington and
abolish the death tax.'' He said, ``I have had to be the one to go and
enforce the law of the land and tell a small farmer or a small
businessman that he has got to come up with this much money to pay the
inheritance tax on his parents' farm or his parents' business. And I
have seen that farm have to be sold and that small business have to go
out of business because of what the estate tax does.'' And he said,
``Congressman, it is wrong, and it does not make us that much money.
When you add up all the compliance costs and all the nuisance costs and
all of the heartache it causes families and to the economy, it is not
worth it.''
And besides that, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong in this country to tax the
event of death. I commend the authors of this bill. I urge a vote
``yes'' in favor of the rule and for the underlying bill. Let us
abolish the tax on death.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule on H.R. 8, the
Estate Tax Bill. And once again I call on Congress to tackle the issue
of section 527s. These so-called 527 groups are tax exempt political
organizations which try to influence elections. They can spend millions
of dollars on negative ads, direct mail campaigns, and phone banks.
I want to read to my colleagues directly from the Web page of a 527
loophole from my home State of California. This Web page tells a
potential donor that they can make contributions in unlimited amounts.
These can be from any source and they are not ever going to be a matter
of public record.
These 527s pose a grave threat, I believe, to our current democratic
process. Unfortunately, our House leadership will not give us a vote on
this important issue. It is my hope that the next time I come to the
House floor to discuss these 527s it will be to pass the bill authored
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). Surely, in the House of
Representatives, we can do something to close this loophole and to
clean up our election laws, and we should do it now.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
I was not going to speak until I heard a speech a minute ago from the
other side, and I just wanted to make a point as simply as I could as
to why this is such an important law for all Americans.
There was a comment made about this bill being a legacy for the rich.
Let me just, by using this piece of paper, give my colleagues an
example. When a first generation American small business owner or
family farmer passes to the second generation what he has, the United
States gets this, and the family gets this. When the second generation
dies, to pass to the third, this is what the government gets, and this
is what the family has.
If we do the math, we expect an American family who works and toils
and hires and pays taxes to grow a business eight times its original
worth on the death of the first owner in order for the third family
generation, 40 years later, to have the same thing, while the United
States Government has received 150 percent of the production of that
business.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I do not think 2 minutes is going to capture the
frustration I feel in rising today to speak about this rule.
[[Page H4080]]
There is not one of us on this floor or in this House that does not
recognize the value of giving relief to small business owners and
family farms. I do know however, that the Democratic substitute that
hopefully will be offered does address those family farmers and small
businesses, by providing real estate tax relief, without the $50
billion cost of the Republican proposal.
My frustration arises, because in the middle of a debate on Labor-
HHS, we stop it to debate this, when $1.25 billion has been taken out
of the workers' programs to exclude help for homeless reform and help
for incumbent workers along with youth summer jobs. We stop that debate
to debate the rule on the estate tax. And then this rule does not
include the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) on
527s, that deals with exposing which donors donate to groups organized
around advocating for certain issues yet can use the funds for any
campaign use without real limits. Why can't we debate frankly and
fairly an amendment that will tell the American people who is
contributing to what group for what political purpose--let's not hide
behind the 1st amendment to avoid simple disclosure.
If we are not trying to take dollars from family farms and small
businesses, why are we relying on big bloated individuals to fund these
unknown entities with 527 funds, and we cannot even say who is it that
is giving money.
I am frustrated because I think the debate on Labor-HHS should have
continued. We should have been able to discuss youth opportunity
grants, we should have been able to discuss training of incumbent
workers. The Nabisco plant that was closed in my district had workers
that should have the funds to benefit from worker training dollars that
are now cut from the Labor-HHS appropriation bill. Such dollars could
help these individuals to be trained for possible jobs in the
technology industry. Homeless veterans should have been able to get the
dollars that were needed, yet we stopped the debate on Labor-HHS to
debate an estate tax provision that costs $50 billion at the same time
we will need the money to fund Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, the rule is unfair in several respects, one, that the
Doggett amendment on 527 groups was not allowed under this rule; two,
that we are debating this estate tax legislation with its 50 billion
dollar price tag instead of proceeding with the Labor-HHS legislation;
and then, thirdly, we have on the floor a $50 billion bill that could
have been done in a bipartisan manner at less costs that would have
truly given estate tax relief to small businesses and family farmers.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation today, and it
is interesting that we are talking about giving estate tax relief for
American families yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
changing the subject to campaign finance reform. It is interesting
today that DNC, the Democratic National Committee, begins airing soft
money ads for Al Gore, but nonetheless we are still talking, as the
majority party, about giving tax relief to families.
The premise was launched today about the rich getting a benefit under
the bill. Well, let me tell my colleagues that the estates did not just
materialize. The people who have created the businesses and the wealth
in America paid excise taxes, paid property taxes, paid sales taxes,
paid income taxes. And the wealthy that my colleagues are speaking of
with such affection know how to avoid estate taxes. They buy high-
dollar denomination insurance policies. But the small family business
cannot afford them because they are paying ever larger taxes.
{time} 1615
I understand there is a substitute being offered by the minority. And
it is interesting, they have had 40 years to eliminate seniors earning
test, they have had 40 years to do something about estate relief tax,
they have had 40 years to change the Tax Code. But know we are here
today to try to rectify what is an egregious violation of hard work and
equity on the American taxpayer.
Let us remember, my colleagues, that small businesses grew through
hard work, entrepreneuralism, and strength of families; and, lo and
behold, when the person who created the business and prayed to God that
all that hard work would some day benefit their children, in steps the
Government, their new partner. They were not there to assist them
through the growing formative years. But, lo and behold, they are here
today to take out not only their fair share but an excessive share.
Then we hear the hew and the cry from the other side about the
diminution of revenue to the States. Well, let us cry for that today.
Because the families who work their entire life have their businesses
decimated, destroyed, subdivided, and sold off in pieces at auction to
pay the Government's need for revenue. They are addicted to cash in the
States and the Federal Treasury. We should do something today for the
American families.
I always learned growing up, my parents told me to work hard, strive
for success, reach for excellence, build equity, make a life for
yourself, be independent. Under the assumption today, we are passing a
bill that furthers that independence and creates self-worth and
dignity. Under their approach, let me take it out of their pocket. I do
not care how hard they work. It is my money, and I will spend their
money as I see fit.
My colleagues, let us focus on estate taxes. Let us focus on
families. We will deal with 527 corporations. But let us not change the
subject. Pull the ads on the air by the DNC, and then we will talk
about 527s.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate and adopt
some form of estate tax relief today, as we should, as was pointed out
by the previous speaker. But we also have an obligation to deal with an
immediate problem that has developed in our campaign finance reform
system which, we have to admit, is rancid. And that immediate problem
is a gaping loophole that has developed that is referred to as the
section 527 committee, a committee that solicits funds that are
intended to be used to influence the outcome of an election and there
is absolutely no disclosure whatsoever.
As has been alluded to, this is not just a Republican problem. It has
started off that way. I am terribly concerned the Democrats will
succumb to the temptation to engage in this abuse. We need to stop that
before it happens.
What is at stake here? What is at stake here is that, when people go
out to vote in elections this fall, they have the right to know who is
talking to them. People should put their names on their ads if they are
attempting to influence the outcome of an election.
What is the only substantive argument against this? There are groups
that have said that if their names have to go on some of the ads they
want to run, they will not run those ads. If they are not willing to
put their name on a message that they are sending to the voters, they
should not have a right in this country to be engaging in anonymous
political advertising.
We can put a stop to that today. We can repeal the gift law
exemption. With respect to these 527 acts, we can do that. And we can
do estate tax relief. Let us do the right thing. Let us defeat the
rule, and let us bring it back at the right time, and let us stop this
abuse before it gets worse.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have got to comment on the fact that the Democrats
seem to rather talk about campaign finance reform on this than
relieving America from an insidious tax, an immoral tax, a tax on what
they accumulated through their lifetime and want to pass on to their
children. Next to the gift tax, it is the least moral tax. But they
would rather talk about 527 organizations that are used in campaigns.
Their indignation, while seeming real, seems also very selective.
Where were they when the peace action 527 was hammering Republicans?
Ben and
[[Page H4081]]
Jerry's has a 527 trying to cut the Pentagon budget. I did not hear
them talk about them. The AFL/CIO has been using them for years, and
the Sierra Club spent millions on issue ads in 1996 through their 527.
I did not hear anybody up here hollering about them.
But guess what? The Republicans copied their practice, formed a 527,
and all of a sudden it is a threat to democracy. It is a threat to
democracy.
This indignation is too selective to be seen as real. Let us pass
this rule and move on with doing the right thing for the American
people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in strong opposition to the rule, primarily
because it has denied the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) the
opportunity to offer an amendment that I believe was meant to protect
Social Security, Medicare, and debt reduction. In fact, this was the
same amendment that was offered on the CARIB bill that was just for $3
billion on May 10.
Now, we could accept it on that one. Today we are looking at a bill
that is going to cost us $50 billion and for about 45,000 people.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentlewoman, how did she vote on
the Shadegg amendment?
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I voted ``yes.''
And I am certainly glad the gentleman did point that out because,
yes, I did. And then, of course, we revoted that vote, with every
Democrat and Republican on this floor except for three voting to
protect Medicare and Social Security. And if the gentleman remembers,
that was $3 billion.
Today they want to spend $50 billion. So today we are going to spend
$50 billion, and we are not going to be given the same opportunity to
offer this amendment again.
The amendment basically says, and I will read it directly from the
Congressional Record.
By the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg):
``Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
``The American people have spoken. They agree that conservation
funding is important. I commend the sponsors of this bill on that
point. But there is a very important condition. They do not agree that
we should raid the Social Security Trust Fund. They have made that
position extremely clear last year and the year before. They want 100
percent of the surplus set aside. They also want to know that Medicare
is funded and solvent. They have made that very clear. They want to
know that it is there for their health care as seniors. And they want
to know that the public debt will be paid off by the deadline of
2013.''
Why can we not have this amendment? I do not understand that. I think
we should vote against this rule and allow the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) to have his day.
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. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I almost have to say that demagoguery is a
serious ailment, an illness, to a democratic form of government. It is
unfortunate that we cannot have serious dialogue and debate about the
issue that we have. This is about a rule on the repeal of the death
tax. It is not about campaign finance reform.
I served here under the minority in the 39th and 40th year of
Democrat rule when this House was a sea of red ink, the debt exploding,
deficits as far as the eye could see. Now they are trying to claim that
they are the protectorates of the treasury, that they somehow are the
protectorates of Social Security when they took the Social Security
Trust Fund monies to grow Government? That is absurd.
What we have here today is to repeal the death tax. This is long
overdue. This tax hits individuals who have worked hard all their
lives, who have worked and saved in their efforts to fulfill the
American dream.
My constituent from Marion, Indiana, wrote to me about her parents:
``My parents were frugal and saved any large sum of money they ever got
their hands on. My mother taught school. My father was a master pattern
maker. They will were products of the Depression. They purchased land
in Arkansas. And now their estate looks to total over $1 million. Now
this estate is forced with a 39-percent estate tax. What a disgrace.
Surely we do not have to take from those of whom were frugal, made sure
that they paid their way, and are now dead.''
This tax hits the small business owner and the family farmer the
hardest. These are the individuals who sacrifice, who invest their time
and money in the family business and their farm, and they want to leave
this world comforted with the knowledge that their children and
grandchildren can also continue their labor and hard work.
The death tax collects for the Federal Government merely 1 percent of
the revenues. Do my colleagues realize that if we cleaned up the fraud
on the earned income tax credit we could more than offset this tax?
Yet compliance costs are nearly as much as the revenue collected. And
the time a small business owner or farmer spends to plan for the
inevitable coming of death, is time and energy and money that is not
spent on growing the business. A dollar that goes to the accountant or
lawyer is a dollar that does not go to new equipment or expansion.
This is a tax on the very behavior the government should be
encouraging . . . Hard Work.
Only one-third of family-owned businesses survive into the next
generation. All too often a family business or farm has to be
liquidated so the heirs can pay the death tax. When a family has to
sell the family farm to pay taxes, it can mean that open space, fields
and forests, are lost to development. There is an indirect adverse
impact to our environment from this tax.
The death tax is unnecessary, unfair and against the virtue of hard
work. It is wrong to confiscate the savings of people who work hard all
their lives.
I urge the adoption of the rule and support the repeal of the death
tax.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I hope during the course of this debate someone will
explain to me how a Nation that is $5.7 trillion in debt; a Nation that
squanders $1 billion a day in interest on that debt; a Congress that
during their lifetimes saw the debt rise by $4.7 trillion; a Congress
that is delaying the pay of the troops in the military from September
29 to October 1 in a budget game to move that $2.5 billion expense to
the next fiscal year, no big deal for a Congressman, big deal for an E2
or an E3 when they do not have money for diapers or formula that
weekend; a Congress that will not vote on the Shows bill to help our
Nation's veterans and military retirees because they say we do not have
the $5 billion, but this same Congress is now saying we are going to
ignore the fact that we owe the Social Security Trust Fund $800
billion, we are going to ignore the $1 billion a day we are paying in
interest on that debt, and we are going to give the wealthiest two
percent of all Americans a tax break.
If they earn $650,000, they pay taxes on it. But they can inherit
$650,000 and pay nothing. That is the present law. So we are really
talking about things above that. And if it happens to be a couple, then
it is $1.3 million.
Yes, there are some farmers who are the unfortunate victims of the
inflation value of their acreage. Yes, there are some small business
owners. Let us gear this bill to take care of them instead of helping
the folks who have the most, who, in all probability, benefit when we
borrow money because they sell us the T bills, and they are already
getting the interest on that debt and all we are going to do is pass
this generation's bills on to our children.
I will not do that as an individual. I will not do that as a
Congressman.
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. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
[[Page H4082]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax
Elimination Act of 2000. I urge my colleagues to lend this bill their
full support.
The estate tax is an outmoded policy that has long outlived its
usefulness. Alternatively known as the death tax, this tax was
instituted back in the early 1900s, about 1960, to prevent too much
wealth from congregating from the wealthy capitalist families in early
20th century America.
Regrettably, the law failed in its original purpose, as the truly
wealthy are always able to shelter their income with the help of tax
attorneys that the middle class cannot afford.
In recent years, the estate has tax has been responsible for the
death of 85 percent of America's small businesses by the third
generation. Furthermore, countless number of farms have had to be sold
in order to pay an outrageously high estate tax ranging as high as 55
percent of the farm's assessed value.
By forcing the sale of such farmland to outside buyers, often
commercial developers, the estate tax has been a large contributor to
suburban sprawl and unchecked growth in my congressional district in
southern New York State.
The most indefensible point about the estate tax, however, is the
cost associated with enforcing and collecting it. Recent estimates have
placed the cost of collecting at 65 cents out of every dollar taken in.
Given this excessive cost, as well as the fact that the assets taxed
under the estate tax have often already been taxed several times, it
makes no sense for us to continue this nonsensical practice. Family-
owned small businesses certainly will do better without the taxes, as
would family farms that still operate from generation to generation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this worthy
legislation.
{time} 1630
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the cosponsor of the amendment.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, let me first say what I am for and what I
will vote for tomorrow, and that is eliminating the death tax on every
estate of $4 million and less. I could be persuaded in the kind of
debate that I would hope we would have to repeal the entire death tax
if it was done in the context of total tax reform. But in the context
of which we will discuss it today and tomorrow and in this rule, I
oppose strongly this rule because it prevents the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman) and I from offering an amendment to ensure
that the estate tax repeal does not threaten Social Security and
undermine the fiscal discipline that has produced our strong economy.
During the debate on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, I joined
with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) to offer an amendment
that made the new spending for conservation programs contingent upon
certification that we were on a path to eliminate the debt by 2013 and
protecting the integrity of the Social Security and Medicare funds. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and I submitted an amendment
applying this principle to phase-in of the estate tax repeal in H.R. 8.
Our amendment is a very straightforward proposal which would simply
require that this tax cut fit within the context of a fiscally
responsible budget and maintain our commitment to eliminating the
publicly held debt as quickly as possible.
Since the Shadegg amendment passed with strong bipartisan support, I
would have hoped that my friends on the other side of the aisle who
supported this principle when it applied to spending would support our
effort to provide the same safeguards for tax cuts consuming the
projected surplus.
Mr. Speaker, not only did I vote with the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and others, I enthusiastically supported them,
and I will be very disappointed if not any of them today support a
similar type of an amendment.
I do not understand how we can have this rhetoric going back and
forth between the sides blaming us on this side when some of us are
asking consistency and when most of us who are concerned about paying
down the debt and protecting Social Security on both sides of the aisle
agree that an H.R. 8 that is backend loaded that will provide a $50
billion hole in the budget in 2010 is not the kind of fiscal
responsibility that we stand up and talk about day after day. I do not
understand how we can have such a dual purpose. When we can have
bipartisan support for the Shadegg amendment but when we offer the same
amendment or we ask under the rule to be allowed to have the same
amendment voted on, you say no.
Mr. Speaker, I would yield any time to anyone on this side of the
aisle right now to explain to me why they would not allow a simple up-
and-down vote to say yes, we will have this repeal of the death tax if
it does not materially affect the survival of Social Security beginning
in 2010. I will be happy to yield to any Member right now to give me a
reason why they would not allow the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman) and I to offer this same amendment on this bill.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rhetoric on the floor here
today, but this is an important and a substantive issue. I believe
firmly it is not a question about rich and poor, it is really a
question of right and wrong. It is a question of fundamental fairness.
Is it right to tax an estate, a family, simply because the owner of
that estate happens to pass away? Is it right to take up to half of
what that family owns?
My colleagues here today are talking about their interest in
protecting a small business. What does that really mean? Let us take a
closer look. That means if your estate, your home, your business, your
farm is only worth $650,000 or $1 million, and you die, well, they
agree that should not be taxed. But if you are successful, if you are
too successful in their eyes, and your business or farm is worth $5
million or $10 million or $20 million, then the Federal Government
should be able to take half, 55 percent of everything you own. The
Federal Government is given a presumptive claim to all of it. Is that
right? Never. It is wrong if your estate is worth $50,000, it is wrong
if your estate is worth $50 million. It is wrong if you are Bill Gates
and your estate is worth $50 billion for the Federal Government to step
in and say we get 55 percent of everything you have.
I think that cuts to the core of what this debate is all about. It is
morally wrong to have written into the Tax Code that kind of power to
confiscate any individual's property, rich, poor, farmer, small
businessman, individual, or family.
I ask my colleagues to support the entire elimination of the death
tax here on the floor tomorrow, not because of dollars and cents but
because of right and wrong.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the Joint Tax Committee estimates that only 2 percent of
all estates will pay estate taxes. Only 3 percent of that 2 percent are
estates where family-owned businesses and farms make up more than half
the value of the estate. To put this in further perspective, in 1998,
the Department of Treasury estimates that only 776 family businesses
and 642 family farms were subject to the estate tax. As a small
businessperson, I am very much aware of the burden under which many
entrepreneurs and working families must operate.
My family has a family business, and I understand the concerns of
those who want to pass their business on to the next generation. We
have passed legislation in this Chamber which has exempted 98 percent
of the family-owned family businesses and family farms. Still we are
going to do more, and I support doing more. The plan that is before us
today even in the 10-year period is $50 billion a year, but really what
we are talking about is over $500 billion from 2011 to 2020, $500
billion when the baby boomers are coming of age for Social Security,
for Medicare, and Medicaid and talking about a prescription drug
program.
I think that the lockbox that everybody promoted earlier and all of
us
[[Page H4083]]
have supported, the lockbox will be empty when it is opened up and it
is already going to be taken out for less than 2 percent of the estates
in the entire country who are going to have those resources available
to them. The substitute plan which we are supporting which is a common
sense approach to continuing to reduce the burden on family businesses
and family farms is a 20 percent reduction across the board in raising
the level, further reinforcing tax relief for these families and to
make sure that they have an opportunity to pass it on from one
generation to the next.
It is something that is very important to me. We have reached across
the aisle and tried to work bipartisanly, but the plan that the
majority is supporting is going to break the bank and not going to
leave any resources for any relief for any Americans.
I think one thing that I hear from my business friends which I would
like to bring up here today is that if we could work on reducing the
interest rates and reducing the debt and deficit, that there would be a
lot more economic activity and a lot more purchases of homes, lower
student loan interest rates, lower car loans and increasing economic
activity throughout America. That is what we ought to be doing, is
looking to reducing the debt and the deficit and not squandering it for
a very few families who are very, very wealthy and taking up all of
what is left for Social Security, Medicare, and a prescription drug
program.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, let us remind ourselves how we got here. When,
in 1993, I introduced the first bill in the history of the income tax
to repeal the death tax, we had just a few sponsors. By the 106th
Congress, I had over 200 sponsors on my legislation to repeal the death
tax. And last year the House and the Senate agreed on legislation that
we sent to President Clinton to completely repeal the death tax. In
September 1999, Bill Clinton vetoed death tax relief.
Now we are back here to do it again for one simple reason. The
gathering momentum behind repeal of the death tax is a result of the
increasing realization of where the burden of this tax falls. It does
not fall on the dead rich person. That is the one person who does not
care. It does not even fall on the wealthy people in the family of the
rich person. They might have to pay 55 percent or 60 percent because of
a 5 percent surtax that kicks in, but the real burden of this falls on
the low-wage worker who pays a tax rate of 100 percent when he or she
loses a job because that medium-sized business or small business that
is not publicly owned has to be liquidated in whole or in part to pay
the tax man.
That is why when in California we put this to an initiative of the
people, even though the Los Angeles Times repeatedly said it is a tax
break for the rich, almost two-thirds of voters agreed we should
completely repeal California's death tax. Larry Summers, now the
Secretary of the Treasury, when he was an economist at Harvard just a
few years ago told us that we probably lose money on this tax, that we
may not even make a penny even though it seems to raise 1 percent of
our revenues because of all the tax avoidance schemes that people use
to not pay it, such as lifetime gifts. That takes away from income tax
they pay this year.
It is time for the death tax to die. I am thrilled we are bringing it
to the floor again. Let us send it to the President again and this time
ask him not to veto it, Mr. President, but to sign it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and also in opposition
to the majority estate tax repeal bill that will be debated on the
floor here tomorrow and in support of the Democratic substitute. I do
not understand why the rule did not make in order the Stenholm
amendment which merely demands some accountability to ensure that a
$500 billion 10-year tax cut that is going to benefit the wealthiest 2
percent individuals in our country does not jeopardize our chances for
meaningful national debt reduction and the long-term solvency of the
Social Security program. It is something that was demanded during the
CARA bill just a couple of weeks ago when it came to conservation and
environmental programs that will benefit the entire Nation and it
should apply as equally well to a large tax cut bill which is going to
be a boom to the wealthiest Americans in this Nation. The Democratic
substitute on the other hand, will take care of the family farmers and
small business owners but in a fiscally responsible manner.
I want to, however, take a few moments to also speak about the latest
scourge in the campaign finance system and that is the creation of the
527 corporations that we are seeing in modern American politics. These
are the unregulated, unlimited, unaccountable corporations that are
being formed for the sole purpose of influencing the outcome of
campaigns.
They are unaccountable in the fact that no one knows where these
large contributions are coming from. In fact, they could be coming from
foreign sources and it would be legal for foreign contributors make
contributions to the 527s in order to influence the American political
process. And that is wrong and it should be changed. For too long in
this Chamber, the opponents of finance reform have always claimed that
the only thing we need to demand is more disclosure in the system.
The Moore-Doggett bill does exactly that. All it requires is
accountability through disclosure to apply to 527s so we have an idea
of where all this money is coming from. It is an outrage what is going
on. It is unacceptable. If we are to live up to the words and the
rhetoric that has been permeating these halls for too long, we should
at least take this very sensible and practical approach. If we cannot
pass comprehensive finance reform or even incremental reform with
Shays-Meehan or the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate, let us at least
do the right thing and demand disclosure in the 527s.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is amazing to me that so much of
the debate against this bill has been about campaign finance. I am for
the rule, I am for the bill. If I was on the other side of it, I might
be trying to talk about something else as well. Two weeks ago, we
repealed a tax that we had put on the books in 1898 to fight the
Spanish American War. This tax was put on the books in 1916 to fight
World War I. It is time to get rid of these 100-year-old special
purpose taxes and even the 86-year-old special purpose taxes. People do
not have anything at their death that they have not paid taxes on many
times. Death should not be a taxable event. You should not have to see
the IRS agent and the undertaker the same week or you should not have
to see the IRS agent because you saw the undertaker.
We need to eliminate this tax. We can do this. The American people
know it is unfair. Let me make one final point. In terms of spending
like we were talking about in the CARA bill and so often the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I are on the same side, we are talking
about spending on Federal land or for more Federal land. If a family
budget goes in the red, they cut their spending. They do not get a new
source of income. There is nothing wrong with cutting taxes and giving
the American family the tax break they need. If we have a shortfall, we
ought to find that shortfall in spending just like we said on the CARA
bill we were prepared to do.
{time} 1645
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the problem with the underlying bill that
repeals the estate tax is that it is back-loaded. It provides the
relief in the outyears and explodes in costs and is fiscally
irresponsible. The substitute provides relief now and does it in a
fiscally responsible way.
Let me just give my colleagues one example. Under current law, if one
has a net estate of $1 million, one pays $125,000 in estate tax. Under
the underlying bill, if one dies in 2001, it will be reduced to
$93,000. Under the Democratic substitute, one would pay zero
[[Page H4084]]
estate taxes in 2001. If one's estate is $1.5 million under current
law one would pay $335,000 in taxes. Under the underlying bill, the
repeal bill, one would still pay $277,000, a 17 percent reduction. But
under the Democratic substitute, one would only pay $135,000, or a 60
percent reduction.
The problem is that we are trying to deal with family-owned
businesses and family farms, which represents 3 percent of the 2
percent of the estates that are subject to the estate tax, .06 percent
of the estates. We spend a lot of money to do it. The substitute deals
with it directly by raising that to $4 million before it is subject to
estate tax.
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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, thanks to this full, wholesome, and hard-
hitting debate, one might conclude that this is a partisan issue when,
in fact, it is very bipartisan. There are 46 Democrats who have joined
with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) as cosponsors of this
very important legislation.
As has been pointed out several times, death should, in fact, not
trigger a tax; and it is very, very unfortunate that there are many
people who, upon facing death, family members have to, along with
visiting the undertaker, visit the IRS agent, visit the tax lawyer,
visit their accountant, and that is wrong. We want to end that.
There are many people here who have been arguing that this is somehow
going to create a drain on the flow of revenues to the Federal
Treasury. That is clearly wrong. Empirical evidence has shown that if
we would have repealed the death tax back in 1971, by 1991, the gross
domestic product growth would have been 1 percentage point higher,
obviously generating an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal
Treasury.
As we look at a study that recently came out, it showed that 75
percent of successful businesses failed after the death of the owner,
and lack of capital has been the reason that 70 percent of those
businesses reported that they failed and obviously, the death tax,
which has created real uncertainty and great problems and a drain, have
played a role in jeopardizing economic growth.
So it seems to me that we have a very important obligation to realize
that this is the responsible thing to do; the American people want us
to do this. Double taxation is wrong, and this is a first step towards
repealing that. This is a fair rule. We have turned ourselves inside
out to make sure that we provided for a substitute that is going to be
offered by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, and we also suspect that there may be a motion to recommit. It
is a tax bill. We do not open up the Tax Code. The Democrats never did
it, we are not doing that, and yet we have provided 2 bites at the
apple for Members of the minority; so it is a very fair measure, and I
urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill itself.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the other
Republican members of the Committee on Rules have now joined their
Republican colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, who have
twice voted, on a strictly partisan basis, to ensure that this House
does nothing to clean up the mess in our political system.
My amendment that they rejected is to the gift tax, a critical part
of this estate and gift tax bill. I believe that it is time for
taxpayers to stop subsidizing those, who make unlimited, secret
contributions to section 527 political organizations.
What is a 527? Not some new kind of aircraft. A 527 political
organization, quite simply, is a political hit squad. It relies on
contributors who are hidden: they can be foreign, they can be Iraqi,
Cuban, Chinese, whatever, or just home-grown special interest corporate
treasury money. Its operations are secret, and its mission is character
assassination. These are the groups that pollute the airwaves and fill
our mailboxes with hate ads attacking one side or the other.
Last week, before we recessed for Memorial Day, 201 Democrats and 6
Republicans stood on this floor and said, enough of that nonsense. They
voted to clean up this mess, and at least get disclosure, nonpartisan
disclosure. This amendment applies to everyone, regardless of political
philosophy or association or allies, to see that all of them meet the
simple, narrow requirement of merely answering: ``who gave you the
money'' and ``what did you spend it on.''
Today, as we speak on this floor, on the other side of this Capitol,
Republican Senators are rising to say they cannot do anything about
cleaning up 527 political organizations because it is a tax measure,
the very reason I offer the amendment here, and that the House must act
first. So we have on one side, the Republican leadership saying the
House must act first, while the House leadership hammers into
submission the members of its caucus to keep them from doing what they
know is right. Our Republican colleagues know that their leadership,
and some have said this, they know their leadership's position is
absolutely indefensible, that one cannot defend relying on secret,
hidden money to produce these hate ads, and yet that is what the
leadership insists that they do.
Those who say that the Republicans, as some reports have suggested,
now have a proposal to deal with this problem are wrong. They do not
have a bill, they do not have a hearing, they do not have a proposal
for which they will even provide an outline. All that they are doing is
trying to provide their caucus some cover, because they also do not
have any good excuse for not resolving this problem. As Senator John
McCain has said, this is ``the latest manifestation of corruption in
American politics,'' and we can do something about it with this bill.
Tomorrow, there is going to be a moment of truth, a motion to
recommit and an opportunity to vote up or down to stand and show
whether we are in favor of more deceit, of more character
assassinations on the television airwaves paid for with hidden money,
or whether we are in favor of cleaning up this corruption of the
American political system.
The Washington Post said it best today in its editorial, ``In Love
With the Dark'': ``It is hard to believe that a majority of the House,
including the leadership, cannot be shamed into voting at least for
sunlight. Why would they prefer the dark?''
Mr. Speaker, I would challenge my Republican colleagues to answer
that question.
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).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I
would be pleased to set the record straight on his comments. The
gentleman has raised a very substantial, interesting, and I think
important issue in his proposal to require disclosure by 527 groups,
and I believe the gentleman is aware that the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigation of the Committee on Ways and Means is, as we speak--
and has been back only 2 days since this was discussed at the Committee
on Ways and Means full committee meeting--is preparing a proposal that
goes beyond the gentleman's proposal in a very important way. It goes
beyond the gentleman's proposal by treating all tax-exempt entities
that are allowed under the law to engage in political activity the same
way.
I agree with the gentleman's proposal. I just do not believe that it
is evenhanded tax law, because it does not treat in an evenhanded,
equitable, fair way all entities that are tax-subsidized, that is,
citizen-subsidized, but allowed to engage in political activity the
same way.
So we are going to do a very good job on this, in my estimation.
Sunshine is important. Entities that engage in political activity with
taxpayer subsidies should be required, in my estimation, to report
their contributors and their expenditures; and I believe that we will
have the opportunity in committee and on this floor, to pass
legislation that
[[Page H4085]]
builds on the gentleman's proposal, and does what is necessary, and
that is, treats 501(c)(3)s, 4s and 5s and 6s the same way.
So I urge support for the rule and opposition to the previous
question motion.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule. My amendment will make in order the Sherman-
Stenholm fiscal responsibility amendment. The fiscal responsibility
amendment requires that the estate tax relief will not take effect
until, one, the OMB certifies that the public debt will be retired by
the year 2013; and, two, that the trustees certify that plans are in
place to keep solvent the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be
printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for
bringing this bill to the floor, and I support the rule.
The story of Alvin Conklin and his idea of opening up a small lumber
shop on Staten Island represents one man's hope of securing the
American dream for himself and his family. Established in 1888, Farrell
Lumber remains a family-owned and family-operated business in its
truest sense. For 112 years, Alvin Conklin and then Harry Farrell and
his wife, and today, their children, Bob and Don, and grandchildren all
helped make Farrell Lumber a thriving small business with an impeccable
reputation for quality and service. They are a proud member of the
Staten Island community.
However, the estate tax threatens their small business much like it
threatens so many small businesses in America today. For the Farrells,
the estate tax could potentially confiscate the valuable family
business and, worse, strip the Farrells of their dream to pass it on to
their children and grandchildren. It is evident that the death tax
discourages savings and investment and entrepreneurship and punishes
families like the Farrells who work 7 days a week, 15-hour days to grow
and expand their business.
Repealing the estate tax would ensure economic fairness for all
Americans, while encouraging expanded growth and prosperity for our
country as a whole. Let us not forget the 35 people who work for the
Farrells. Those are the guys who load the truck with lumber, who drop
it off at your house, or the lady who helps you select a door. If the
Farrells are forced to close their doors, those 35 people will be out
of work.
There is a story like that across America. Let us end it and make it
a good one for the Farrells.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The death tax stifles growth, discourages savings, stymies job
creation, drains resources, and ruins family businesses and farms. It
is time we phase out this unfair tax and allow the American dream to be
passed on to our children and future generations.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material
previously referred to.
Previous Question Vote To Make In Order The Sherman-Stenholm fiscal
Responsibility Amendment
On page 2, line 13, strike ``and'' the second place it
occurs and after ``(3)'' insert the following:
``The further amendment printed in section 2 of this
resolution, which may be offered only by Representative
Sherman of California or Representative Stenholm of Texas, or
their designee, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and by an opponent; and (4)''
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Section 2. Amendment to be Offered by Representative
Sherman of California or Representative Stenholm of Texas, or
their designee:
At the end of the bill (page ____, after line ____), add
the following new title:
TITLE VI--ENSURING DEBT RETIREMENT AND INTEGRITY OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
AND MEDICARE TRUST FUND SURPLUSES
SEC. 601. ENSURING DEBT RETIREMENT AND INTEGRITY OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TRUST FUND
SURPLUSES.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, a reduction in
the rate of tax (including the repeal thereof) under section
2001(c), and an increase in the exemption amount under
section 2001(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which
is scheduled to take effect in a calendar year shall not take
effect unless the certifications specified by subsection (b)
for the fiscal year in which such calendar year begins are
made before the beginning of such fiscal year.
(b) Certifications Specified.--The certifications specified
in this subsection are the following:
(1) The Director of Office of Management and Budget has
certified that a law has been enacted which--
(A) ensures that a sufficient portion of the on-budget
surplus is reserved for debt retirement to put the Government
on a path to eliminate the publicly held debt by fiscal year
2013 under current economic and technical projections, and
(B) ensures that, under current economic and technical
projections, the unified budget surplus for the fiscal year
in which such calendar year begins shall not be less than the
surplus of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for such
fiscal year.
(2) The Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund has certified either--
(A) that outlays from such trust funds are not anticipated
to exceed the revenues to such trust funds during such fiscal
year and any of the next 5 fiscal years, or
(B) that legislation has been enacted extending the
solvency of such trust funds for 75 years.
(3) The Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund has certified either--
(A) that the outlays from such trust fund are not
anticipated to exceed the revenues to such trust fund during
such fiscal year and any of the next 5 fiscal years, or
(B) that legislation has been enacted extending the
solvency of such trust fund for 25 years.
(c) Continuation of Prior Rate of Tax.--If a reduction in
the rate of tax (including the repeal thereof), or an
increase in the exemption amount, under section 2001 of such
Code does not take effect for a calendar year by reason of
subsection (a), the rate of tax and exemption amount under
such section in effect immediately before the beginning of
such calendar year shall continue in effect.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter
of the measure before us to eliminate the unfair Death Tax.
The Death Tax destroys a fundamental American dream--being able to
pass on the success we have earned to our children. Currently, more
than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second
generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third. My own family
worked to build a family-owned car dealership, and we felt the punitive
blow of the Death Tax.
How can we continue to impose a tax that forces the sale of family
businesses and throws Americans out of work? How can we continue to tax
the very values we should be encouraging--work and saving for our
families?
Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that this tax is unfair
and should be eliminated. The Death Tax forces families to expend
resources on burdensome estate planning.
Small businesses understand that it forces them to cut back
operations, sell income-producing assets, lay off workers and sometimes
liquidate the business.
Conservation groups understand that the Death Tax damages the
environment by forcing families to sell land to developers to pay the
onerous tax.
Mr. Speaker, the Death Tax deserves to die. This bill will kill the
anti-family, anti-job and anti-environmental tax, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
[[Page H4086]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 199, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 248]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Clay
Danner
Greenwood
Houghton
Istook
Klink
Markey
Smith (MI)
Vento
Watkins
{time} 1718
Messrs. HALL of Texas, DICKS, ROTHMAN, BLAGOJEVICH, SANDLIN and FORD
and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GILLMOR and Mr. LAZIO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHugh). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 180, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 249]
AYES--242
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H4087]]
NOES--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Clay
Danner
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Houghton
Istook
Klink
Markey
Smith (MI)
Stark
Vento
Watkins
{time} 1730
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 249, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________