[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 89 (Wednesday, July 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6485-S6497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and 
     gift taxes over a 10-year period.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, this tax has been discussed at length 
over the last several years. Several years ago, we reduced some of the 
impact of this tax, but not much. This tax is among the most often 
raised issues when I am among constituents.
  A number of people have said during the course of the debate that the 
tax does not affect many Americans. Statistically, that is accurate, it 
does not. Therein lies something very important for us to consider 
about this tax, and there is good news in this.
  The fact is that while there are a limited number of Americans 
affected by it, the vast number of Americans, a huge majority, think it 
should be eliminated. Why is that? Why would a tax that is rather 
isolated cause a vast majority of Americans to want to do away with it? 
It is because Americans are still fair about these things, and they do 
not think this is a fair tax. They do not like the concept of any 
family working its entire life, building a business, and then the 
Government, which did not do much to make the business successful--if 
it was not in the way--tapping in saying: Now that belongs to us, not 
you who produced it, but us. They do not like that.
  I suspect a lot of Americans contemplate there will be a time when 
they will have grown their business, and they know it is going to take 
years to do it and hard sweat and worry and anxiety. Then the idea that 
because the founder or the developers of that business had reached the 
end of their lives and it no longer belonged to that family, it is 
inconsistent with the way Americans think. They do not think it is 
fair, and they do not like it hanging over their heads.
  I have always taken that as a sign of great news that Americans still 
hold a fundamental American value that it belonged to those who worked 
and earned it and that the Government ought not impose an egregious and 
unfair tax. Even if it does not affect me, I do not think it should 
happen. We should take heart from that because therein lies our ability 
to ultimately make the tax system more fair across the board. No one 
has much faith in it. They are cynical about it. They are paying the 
highest taxes they have ever paid. There is a latent desire to fix the 
system, and it shows itself vividly in the death tax, or the estate 
tax.

  Another thing which causes me to want to see its elimination is I do 
not

[[Page S6486]]

think it is imposed fairly. An undue burden, as with many taxes, falls 
on the small business person, the small business family, the reasonable 
size family farm or ranch. A lot of people who are ensnared by this tax 
do not even know it has hit them because their assets are in property 
or equipment of which they really do not know the total value. They get 
pushed over the edge. Suddenly, this reaper comes through and falls on 
this small family business, small family farm, or ranch.
  It is devastating because you have to pay the tax in 9 months--I 
think that is correct--and those kinds of businesses and those kinds of 
farms do not have a huge cash account at some financial institution. 
The value in that estate is in land and equipment and goodwill.
  So when the Government says: It is worth $4 million, and you owe us 
over $2 million. What are the family's options? Very limited. There is 
no $2 million. So the business has to be sold or half the farm has to 
be sold or broken up, components of it sold, so they can raise enough 
cash to pay this insatiable appetite in Washington, DC, to get hold of 
everybody's assets, which means the people who are employed by that 
business or farm are typically looking for another job; they are in a 
job line somewhere.
  It is disruptive. It is not useful for the economy. It costs jobs. 
There are millions and millions of dollars spent by larger businesses, 
mostly, to avoid this; and to some extent they can, which is again why 
I say it is pushing this down on what we would call the small business 
or farm. They are taking the principal hit here.
  First, they cannot afford the consultants to figure out how to 
minimize it. Often they do not know they are going to be impacted by 
it, and they do not have the cash to pay it. So the assets have to be 
turned over and sold. And if you have to do it in 9 months--I do not 
know how many people around here have ever gone through the process of 
selling even a home, but sometimes that ``For Sale'' sign stays out 
there a long time. You can take your ``For Sale'' sign down, but the 
Government does not allow you to delay this tax. You are going to pay 
it. So if you have to sell that farm or that business at a fire 
sale price, you have to sell it. Tough luck, says Uncle Sam.

  I ran a small business for about 38 years. That is a long time. I do 
not remember anybody from Washington ever coming in to help me run it. 
In fact, more than once I almost got the idea they would just as soon 
we did not run it; we were fighting them off. Somewhere they got the 
idea they would own half those assets. I know I am joined by millions 
of Americans who do not agree with that.
  Just to restate it, it does not affect a large number of Americans, 
but a huge number of Americans want it gone. They do not think it is 
fair. They think it is inappropriate, and it is. They think it is 
confiscatory, and it is. I think they hold to the American dream and 
figure one day that could impact them, and indeed it might.
  Mr. KYL. Would the Senator yield for a brief comment, a question?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Sure.
  Mr. KYL. The point the Senator just made is validated by a Gallup 
Poll that just came out, conducted from June 22 to 25. It shows that 60 
percent of adults favor this proposal that would eliminate all 
inheritance taxes, compared to 35 percent who oppose it--almost 2-1 
support for elimination of the death tax.
  Interestingly enough, to the point the Senator just made, only 17 
percent of Americans say they would personally benefit from the tax 
elimination, while 43 percent say they would not benefit.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Two-to-one.
  Mr. KYL. Yet they support its repeal because they understand it is 
unfair.
  To the point of the Senator from California yesterday, who said this 
all boils down to whose side are you on, no, it does not. What it boils 
down to is that the vast majority of the American people, 
understanding, even though it may not affect them, it is a totally 
unfair tax, agree with us that it should be repealed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate the Senator citing the poll. I have known 
from previous data of its overwhelming support. I think the point that 
2-1 they favor eliminating it and 2-1 they think it probably will never 
affect them--as I said, I always take heart in this because it 
demonstrates the deep reserve of fairness among Americans about tax 
policy and about their Government.
  This is not a fair tax, nor is it implemented fairly. It 
discriminates against those who do not have the resources to try to 
ameliorate it. So it just really builds up on the small farmer, small 
businessperson. They are paying an unfair burden here, on top of which, 
I would add, it creates turmoil in the workplace. It costs us jobs. It 
creates enormous anxiety and puts an undue and unnatural pressure on 
the financial decisions those who are impacted by it have to make.
  You cannot manage the transaction of the sale of a business typically 
in 9 months; there are too many forces at work. It is very difficult to 
do. I have been through that, too. So you are creating a timetable that 
is unnatural and, therefore, you create another burden on the family in 
about as difficult a time as you can imagine. They have already 
suffered an enormous personal loss, and then here comes Uncle Sam: OK, 
9 months, belly up.
  So I appreciate the work of the Senator from Arizona and all those 
others who have come to speak in favor of the elimination of the tax. I 
know we are going to be successful. I do not know how long it is going 
to take. Because Americans do not want this tax. So whether it occurs 
in this current debate, which I hope it does, or one to follow, I know 
this is going to be changed.
  I end with this. I do not go to a single meeting in my State where 
there are not several people who raise this question. My State is 
deeply agricultural, so we have thousands of small farmers. This is 
like a loaded gun pointed at their head. So they are waiting for us to 
do something about this because they know it is unfair. And it is 
creating an unnatural worry in a community, I might add, that is 
already under enormous stress. Agriculture is all across the country. 
This adds to that burden. It does so in a very dramatic way.
  I thank the Senator for according me some time here this morning and 
wish him luck on the success of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I heard the speech of my good friend from 
Georgia on the House bill. After very thorough consideration of this 
matter, I reach a different conclusion, I must say to my good friend 
from Georgia. Frankly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the House bill to 
repeal the estate tax. I do this for three reasons.
  First, there is a significant chance that the debate will be 
conducted under the restrictions of cloture, which denies Senators a 
fair opportunity to propose amendments.
  Second, the House bill reforms the estate tax the wrong way. There 
are all kinds of ways to reform the estate tax. The House bill is the 
wrong way.
  Third, the House bill crowds out and pushes aside other more 
important priorities in which the vast majority of the American people 
are far more interested.
  Before getting into those arguments in detail, I will provide some 
background about the estate tax. Nobody likes paying taxes, whether it 
is income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, or estate 
taxes. Of course, if one asks in a poll, would you like to have a 
certain tax repealed, the vast majority of Americans would say, yes, I 
don't like paying that tax, repeal it. Unfortunately, we all know we do 
have to pay some tax. After all, in a civilized society, there is some 
revenue that has to be raised to support society's governmental, 
organizational purpose and structure. The only question is, obviously, 
how much and what is the balance.
  We should aim to have a tax system that raises the minimum amount of 
revenue that is necessary and does it in a fair and balanced way. For 
more than 80 years, there has been a consensus that the estate tax is a 
small but important part of a fair and balanced tax system. It has been 
a bipartisan consensus.
  The Federal estate tax was first proposed by President Theodore 
Roosevelt. It was repeated by his successor, William Howard Taft. In 
fact, in

[[Page S6487]]

his inaugural address in 1909, President Taft said that it may be 
necessary to raise additional revenue and that if so ``new kinds of 
taxation must be adopted, and among these I recommend a graduated 
inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of 
collection.'' That was President William Howard Taft.
  A few years later, in 1916, Congress needed to raise additional 
revenue primarily to prepare for possible involvement in World War I. 
Congress had to make hard choices. Congress could either raise tariff 
rates or it could come up with an alternative. This is what the House 
Committee on Ways and Means said:

       It is probable that no country in the world derives as much 
     revenue per capita from its people through the consumption 
     tax as does the United States. It is therefore deemed proper 
     that, in meeting the extraordinary expenditures for the Army 
     and the Navy our revenue system should be more evenly and 
     equitably balanced and a larger portion of our necessary 
     revenues collected from the incomes and inheritances of those 
     deriving the most benefit and protection from the government.

  Congress enacted the estate tax in 1916. It has been amended several 
times. For example, in 1932, in response to revenue needs generated by 
the Great Depression, the rates were increased significantly. In 1981, 
under President Reagan, the rates were cut significantly, with the top 
rate falling from 70 percent to 55 percent. Today the Federal estate 
tax applies to estates with a value of more than $675,000. That 
threshold amount is scheduled to rise to $1 million by the year 2006. 
There are special rules for farms and for family businesses.
  All told, the tax applies to the estates of about 2 out of every 100 
people who die each year. That is about 2 percent. It raises $28 
billion a year. To put that in perspective, it is 3 percent of the 
amount that is raised by the Federal income tax. under the estate tax.
  That brings me to the House bill we have before us today. The House 
bill works in two steps. First, over the first 9 years, the House bill 
gradually reduces estate taxes down to a top rate of about 40 percent. 
Then in the year 2010, a full 10 years after enactment, it completely 
repeals the estate tax. At the same time the House bill imposes a new 
requirement, something of which not many Senators are aware. People who 
inherit estates worth more than certain amounts must maintain what tax 
lawyers call the ``carryover basis'' of inherited assets. That is in 
the House bill.
  All told, the 10-year cost of the House bill is $105 billion. But it 
is important to note that the House bill is constructed to disguise the 
real long-term costs. In the 10th year, when the estate tax is 
completely repealed, the cost is almost $50 billion a year, and the 
cost will rise each year after that. I have seen estimates up to $750 
billion over the second 10 years.

  That, in a nutshell, is the House bill.
  As I said at the outset, I oppose the bill. I do so for several 
reasons. My first concern is with the process. Once again, the majority 
may invoke cloture as a first resort. This limits debate. It limits the 
ability for Senators to offer amendments. Most important of all, it 
denies the American people an opportunity to have their elected 
representatives conduct a full, unfettered public debate about a very 
important issue. I hope that we can avoid cloture and have an open 
debate.
  I have another concern about the process. This is a serious issue, 
whether we repeal a Federal estate tax. We are considering a proposal 
that can be fairly described as radical--total repeal. That is pretty 
radical. The House bill would completely repeal a tax that has been an 
integral part of the Federal tax system since 1916; repeal it, lock, 
stock, and barrel, get rid of it totally, with no amendments and no 
hearing. That raises many serious questions.
  One is the impact across income levels. I am not talking about class 
warfare. Believe me, that is one thing I don't like to get into; I 
don't believe in it. That is bashing the rich. Rather, I am talking 
about fully understanding the impact of this proposal on the overall 
fairness and balance of our tax system, a subject we have not 
addressed. It hasn't even been raised; we haven't had the opportunity.
  Another question is about the new rules to maintain the carryover 
basis of certain inherited assets--very complicated, totally new, not 
debated, not even known by a majority of Senators. In some cases, this 
would require recordkeeping across several generations. Just think of 
that, requiring new recordkeeping across several generations. I 
remember back when Congress tried to do something similar in 1978. The 
new law was extraordinarily complex. It created a fierce public 
backlash, and we quickly repealed it.
  We would do the same if this were ever enacted into law; I guarantee 
it. Do we want people to have to keep track of the price that their 
great-great-grandparents paid for property and investments? Under the 
House bill they will have to.
  Another question is the impact on charitable giving. A great deal of 
charitable giving comes from bequests. People make these bequests 
primarily because they want to help communities. That is a good cause. 
But we all know in some cases there is a tax planning element because 
charitable contributions are deducted from the value of an estate. Do 
we know how repeal of the estate tax will affect charitable giving? Has 
that been discussed, debated? Many estate tax lawyers I talk to tell 
me: Max, if you repeal the Federal estate tax, it is going to have a 
substantial effect on charitable giving. There will be a substantial 
reduction in charitable giving, major, big time, if you repeal the 
Federal estate tax.
  Another question is the impact on States. Currently--this is not well 
known; how could it be, there hasn't been a hearing; we had no 
opportunity for amendments--currently an estate receives a credit for 
inheritance and estate taxes that the estate pays to a State 
government. As a result, these State taxes generally don't increase the 
overall burden on an estate. Instead, they shift revenues from the 
Federal Government to the States. It is about a third.
  The long and short of it is, about a third of all the Federal estate 
taxes that are collected go to States. We, therefore, collect the 
revenue that goes to the States. Under a total repeal, that is the end 
of that. Does anybody know that? Do the States know that? Do the 
Governors know that? I don't think they have focused on this because 
they don't know about it. How could they? There have been no hearings.
  If the Federal estate tax umbrella is repealed, many States may face 
strong pressure to reduce or eliminate their own inheritance taxes and 
estate taxes--resulting in unintended consequences, unthought-out 
consequences, unknown consequences.
  Still another question is how repeal of the estate tax will affect 
the concentration of wealth. As we all know, one reason the estate tax 
was enacted and later strengthened was to limit the accumulation of 
huge fortunes that can be passed on to create economic dynasties. Are 
we prepared to say that today this is no longer an issue?
  Now I am not trying to be judgmental, Mr. President, believe me. I am 
just raising very important questions that have to be discussed, 
debated, and thought out. I am not suggesting I have all the answers. I 
am simply saying these are very serious questions that deserve more 
time and attention than we are giving them. After all, we are not 
referring the House bill to the Finance Committee for a hearing where 
the questions can be addressed. In fact, the Finance Committee hasn't 
held a hearing on estate taxes in this Congress. I will repeat that. 
The Finance Committee has not held a hearing on estate taxes in this 
Congress. Instead, we are rushing the House bill to the floor under 
cloture.
  Why are we doing this? Why not hold hearings so that we can more 
fully understand the implications of the House bill? That is just my 
first concern in the process.
  Now my second concern. While the House bill reforms the estate tax, 
it reforms it in the wrong way. There is a right way and a wrong way to 
do things. The House bill reforms the wrong way.
  For a long time, I have supported reform of the estate tax. Most of 
us here do. I have worked on special rules for farms and ranches. A few 
years ago, I worked closely with Senator Dole on reforms for family-
owned small businesses.
  Despite these and some other improvements, the estate tax still hits

[[Page S6488]]

some people too hard, especially those who own farms, ranches, and 
small businesses. We should fix that. We should fix it now. We need to 
help our farmers and our small businesses. The amendment that I and the 
majority of my side support will do that.
  The House bill that we may adopt, would do very little for those 
estates, very little for those farmers, ranchers, and small business 
people--until 10 years later when, under their bill, it is fully 
repealed.
  On the other hand, the alternative that Senators Moynihan, Conrad, 
and I propose would reform the estate tax in the right way. It would do 
two things that are simple but effective.
  First, we dramatically increase the amount that is exempt from the 
estate tax. Currently, it is $675,000. We increase it to $1 million per 
spouse right away. And a few years later, we begin to increase it again 
until it reaches $2 million. For a couple, that would be $4 million.
  Second, we increase the family-owned business exclusion to $4 million 
per spouse. For a couple, that is $8 million.
  These simple changes have a huge effect. The first year, we would 
exempt over 40 percent of the estates that currently are subject to an 
estate tax. The fact is, it is much more relief for estates in this 
range than the House bill would provide.
  As this chart shows, the Democratic alternative is on the left. This 
chart shows who is left paying taxes after the first year. On the left 
side, you can see the bar there, which represents the Republican bill, 
50,000 Americans would continue to pay estate taxes in the first year, 
just like they would under current law. In the first year, as it shows 
on the right side, under the Democratic alternative, only 30,000 
Americans would pay estate taxes. Guess what. That basically continues 
for 9 years--not totally, but basically.
  So the Democratic alternative provides relief--significant relief--in 
the first 10 years. The Republicans' doesn't. There is some near the 
end. But there is a cliff effect after 10 years, with all of the 
consequences we have not even talked about.
  These simple changes have a huge effect. The first year, we would 
exempt over 40 percent of the estates that are currently subject to an 
estate tax. Under the Republican alternative, none would be exempt over 
the first 10 years. Over the longer term, when the provisions take full 
effect, the Democratic proposal would exempt two-thirds of all estates, 
three-quarters of all small businesses, and 90 percent of all farms and 
ranches that would otherwise have to pay estate tax.

  Remember, only 2 percent of the estates pay an estate tax. But we are 
saying in the Democratic alternative that three-quarters of those who 
currently pay--three-quarters of the small businesses, two-thirds of 
all estates, and 90 percent of all farmers and ranchers would be 
exempt.
  This chart shows that, under current law, the Democratic alternative 
exempts three-quarters of all family-owned businesses. The Democratic 
alternative exempts 95 percent of farms. On the left, under current 
law--this is a huge bar. That means those folks are still paying. Under 
the Democratic alternative, very few pay. You can see that.
  This other chart is showing the same thing with respect to all estate 
taxes. That is, over the first 10 years, fewer Americans will be paying 
estate taxes than under the House bill.
  Next year, it is expected that about 2.5 million Americans will die. 
Roughly 50,000 will have estates that would pay an estate tax under 
current law. Under the House bill, every one of these estates will 
still pay an estate tax, but at slightly lower rates, with the greatest 
rate reductions going to the larger estates.
  Again, the greatest rate reductions will go to the larger estates; 
whereas, under the Democratic alternative, the bulk--almost all of the 
relief--is immediate, and it goes to farms, ranches, and small 
businesses. The small business exclusion is raised to $8 million per 
couple eventually, and the unified credit is raised to $4 million 
eventually.
  So under our substitute, fully 20,000 of those 50,000 estates won't 
pay an estate tax at all in the very first year. They will be exempt, 
period. The exemptions will be concentrated on the farms, ranches, and 
the small businesses that need relief. That is the right kind of 
reform, not the wrong kind, which I mentioned earlier.
  My third concern is about priorities. At the end of the day, that is 
what this debate is really about. We provide complete relief to estates 
worth up to $4 million, and farms, ranches, and small businesses worth 
up to $8 million--complete relief.
  The proponents of the House bill insist that we go much further, at 
an additional cost of about $40 billion over 10 years. In later years, 
the cost will be much higher, about $50 billion a year. They argue, in 
support of the House bill, that whatever the size of an estate, we 
should not impose a tax at the event of death rather than when an asset 
is sold, and we should not impose rates as high as 55 percent.
  These are serious arguments. I don't dismiss them out of hand. 
Senator Kyl, in particular, has presented an articulate case. But 
reasonable people can differ. When we get the facts out and determine 
what is really going out, different people can reach different 
conclusions. I think it comes down to priorities.
  It seems to me that we in this Chamber could agree in an instant to 
provide relief to the vast majority of farms, ranches, and small 
businesses and, indeed, for the vast majority of estates that are now 
subject to the tax. We can do it for a cost of $60 billion over 10 
years--less than in the House bill.
  So the real question, then, is whether it makes sense for us to spend 
another $40 billion to provide relief for people who are, by any 
measure, very well off and can take care of themselves.
  Again, it is a question of priorities. Despite the euphoria the new 
estimated budget surpluses seem to induce, we all know that, in truth, 
there is no free lunch. If we reduce tax revenue by another $40 
million, we will have much less for other priorities, such as health 
care and prescription drugs, which are much more important to most 
Americans.
  Providing middle-class working families relief from payroll taxes is 
one example; providing incentives for education and savings, and 
providing incentives for research and development, which will keep our 
economy on the cutting technological edge, those are other alternatives 
and higher priorities of the American people which will help make our 
economy stronger, and providing prescription drug coverage so that 
seniors don't have to choose between food and medicine. Many, as we 
well know, have to make that choice.
  Oh, yes. Let's not forget that we are paying down the national debt. 
That is pretty important.
  I hope cloture is not sought. I hope that at some point soon we have 
a real opportunity to discuss and resolve our differences.
  After all, there are some positive signs. The President has signaled 
that he has an interest in compromise.
  Enlightened business leaders are now suggesting there can be a 
compromise. In other words, if we want to write a law rather than 
create a political issue, we can achieve a compromise that makes 
meaningful reforms in estate tax and also address other pressing 
national needs. That would be good news. I hope it happens.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement that I am 
now allotted 15 minutes. I want to comment briefly.
  My friend from Montana indicated a concern a number of times about 
limiting debate. I have to suggest that this debate could have been 
changed had there been an agreement on his side. The idea that there is 
not an opportunity to offer amendments in limited debate is not a very 
valid argument. That is because that side has not agreed.
  I yield time to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I agree with the statement of the very distinguished Senator from 
Montana. Reasonable people can disagree, and they can use the same 
statistics and come to different conclusions. We do that every day in 
this Chamber.
  I wonder, after listening to the debate--whether it is Montana, 
Minnesota, or whatever the State being

[[Page S6489]]

represented by the other side of the aisle--how Montana could be so 
different from Oklahoma.
  Eleven months ago, I did a tour of very small areas in Oklahoma--
Shattuck, Boise, and Gage--places you probably never heard of, with 
very small populations. These people are not wealthy. They are small 
family farmers and ranchers. In that part of Oklahoma, they normally 
have three sources of income. It is either small grain or cattle or 
oil. When all three are down, we have real devastation out there. We 
have a lot of family farms that are not even making enough money to 
break even.
  I remember going out there and talking about the various agricultural 
programs. I talked about crop insurance. I talked about transition 
payments. But when the subject of estate taxes came up, they forgot 
about all of the other Government programs having to do with 
agriculture. They said: It would be the greatest thing in the world for 
us to be able to survive as a family institution and pass this on to 
the next generation.
  These people live day to day. They are not wealthy people. They have 
to really save to buy halfway modern farm equipment. They say: The 
greatest single thing you could do for us would be to allow us to pass 
this on to the next generation.
  I think that dwelling on the small percentage of total estates 
subject to the death tax isn't really an adequate reflection of the 
damage inflicted by the death tax, which is about 1.9 percent out of 
the approximately 2.3 million deaths each year, and 4.3 file a return; 
that is, 98,900. Not all of these are taxable. There is an effect in 
Oklahoma on small businesses and farms.
  If you look at the ``1995 White House Conference on Small Business 
Issue Handbook''--we had several people there as part of that group who 
made this handbook--more than 70 percent of all the family businesses 
do not survive through the second generation, and fully 87 percent do 
not make it to the third generation.
  I ask the Senator from Wyoming about the source of some of these 
figures which we hear, such as the loss of $40 billion in tax revenues. 
I don't know where they come from. I certainly question them.
  The current Federal death tax accounted for only $23 billion in 1998, 
or a meager 1.4 percent of $1.7 trillion in total Federal receipts, a 
level that has remained fairly stable over the years.
  I suggest there are two factors that are not being considered. One is 
the cost of compliance and one is the economic impact.
  There are some studies which illustrate that we could actually end up 
increasing tax revenues by altogether eliminating the death tax.
  A December 1999 study by Congress' Joint Economic Committee said:

       The compliance costs associated with the estate tax are of 
     the same general magnitude as the tax's revenue yield, or 
     about $23 billion. . .The estate tax raises very little, if 
     any, net revenue for the Federal Government.

  In 1998, the Heritage Foundation came up with a similar conclusion. 
They said:

       The cost of compliance means that the $19 billion collected 
     in the Federal death taxes last year actually cost taxpayers 
     $25 billion.

  It is actually a net loss, according to their study.
  A recent report from the Institute for Policy Innovation says:

       Reducing estate taxes would generate sizable economic gains 
     with little revenue loss. Over the next 10 years, doing away 
     with the estate tax would produce $3.67 in output for every 
     $1 of static revenue loss.

  Finally, Alicia Munnell, a former member of President Clinton's own 
Council of Economic Advisors, in a 1988 economic review, estimates that 
the costs of complying with estate tax laws are roughly the same 
magnitude as the revenue raised.
  This came right out of the White House.
  The other factor I am very sensitive to--because before I came to 
this body or to the other body down the hall, I spent 30 years in the 
real world--I know what it is like and how tough it is out in the real 
world. I wish every Member of the Senate had that kind of 30-year 
experience. I can remember the years I spent working long hours hiring 
people and expanding the economic base.
  There is one statistic that is hardly ever used around here. Every 1 
percent increase in economic activity produces an additional $24 
billion of new revenue.
  If you look at the motivation of many of us--I am not the only one in 
this Chamber. I am not the only one certainly in Oklahoma or in this 
country who spent the majority of his life working, not for himself but 
for the kids. Would I have worked those hours and would I have taken 
the time to go out and generate the jobs and revenues for this country 
if I had known that I could not have passed them on to my children?
  I say this: For probably the last 20 years of the 30-some years I 
worked in the real world, I worked for my four kids and now my 
grandkids.
  If anyone in this Chamber who was opposed to the 1993 Clinton/Gore 
tax increase--which some have characterized as the largest single tax 
increase in the history of this country, and the increase in estate 
taxes at that time--if they were offended by that and felt we increased 
taxes too much, as even the President said he did, this is your 
opportunity to undo some of that damage.
  Finally, I consider this to be a moral issue. I think any time you 
have the Government saying you must spend your savings on yourself and 
not give to your kids, it becomes a moral issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in Wyoming.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understood that Senator Schumer was 
going to speak, according to the list that I have.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had 15 minutes. The Senator from 
Oklahoma used part of it. I intend to use the remainder. We are a 
little behind on time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That put us behind.
  Mr. THOMAS. I will use about 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an interesting debate. It has gone 
on now for a substantial amount of time. We talked about all of the 
details. Of course, that is a proper thing to do. There are all kinds 
of ideas in the Senate, which is the way it is supposed to be. That is 
what the Senate is about.
  There are many, particularly on that side of the aisle, who want to 
spend more--that more spending is the better thing to do. There are 
others who believe there should be a limit on spending--a limit on what 
the Federal Government does. But that is a judgment we need to make. 
Some apparently think that it is better to penalize spending, to make 
it more difficult for people to amass money. Others believe we ought to 
encourage savings. That is what the system is about. It causes people 
to be able to work and save for themselves.
  There are some who believe we ought to be in the business of 
redistributing income. Of course, we are dealing with that all of the 
time. Others believe we ought to encourage enterprise and 
entrepreneurship. These differences, philosophical and others, are as 
they should be. It is the role of the Senate to do that. It is also the 
obligation and role of the Senate to come to closure.

  The idea that we drag these things along is exasperating. We have 35 
days left in this session to finish many things, including the very 
important appropriations bills. As we move toward the end, of course, 
we have an administration that is interested, as always, in shutting 
down the Government and blaming the Congress so they get all the 
appropriation things they choose.
  The House adopted this bill by a vote of 279-136, which is greater 
than a two-thirds majority. This estate repeal, this death tax repeal, 
over a 10-year period, does away with the death tax. It takes death out 
of the formula. It would not eliminate taxes. Those properties and 
values passed on to someone else will be a basis, and when and if those 
are disposed of, there will be a tax on them. It isn't a matter of not 
taxing them; it takes death out of the proposition.
  Interestingly enough, despite all the concerns about revenue impacts, 
the tax raises only 1 to 2 percent of overall Federal revenues. That is 
relatively small. As a matter of fact, the Joint Economic Committee 
indicated a probable loss of income taxes because of businesses that 
have to be shut down as

[[Page S6490]]

a result of estate taxes, thus causing a deficit.
  This idea that we will eliminate taxes, that people don't pay taxes 
on the property, isn't true. They will be paid on the basis of whenever 
they are disposed of.
  There are a number of things that need to be dealt with. One is that 
the death tax kills jobs. No question about that. Many small businesses 
and farms have to sell their properties. Jobs are eliminated. Those 
people who lose their jobs are taxed at 100 percent. I happen to be 
from the West where we are interested in keeping open space. 
Agriculture does that. Many agriculturists will have to sell their 
lands when they have to pay this estate tax. It will be developed. It 
ruins that idea.
  Certainly double taxation is involved here, so there are some 
philosophical issues that we ought to take into account. Again, I will 
stay away from the details. We have had a great deal of talk about the 
details.
  Instead of talking about the fact that we have lots of money, there 
are a million things for which we can spend it. We have had more 
difficulty holding down the size of the Federal Government, and that is 
more important when we have a surplus than when we have a deficit 
because there are a million things for which we can spend it. We ought 
to talk about what is the legitimate role of the Federal Government; 
what is the role of State and local governments.
  Do we just involve ourselves in everything because there is money 
available? I don't think so. We have a constitutional government, a 
constitutional limitation. We ought to talk about that. We ought to 
talk about saving Social Security. We are doing that. We ought to talk 
about strengthening health care. We are doing that. We ought to pay 
down some of the debt. And then, frankly, we talk about taxes. Money 
ought to go back to the people who own it, who are paying in. Fairness 
ought to be a part of this whole equation. I hope it will be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am here to talk about the estate tax and what we ought 
to do about it. I want to make a couple of points.
  First, I give the person who named it the ``death'' tax a lot of 
credit. I don't think this issue would have the velocity it does if it 
were not called that. At certain times, words somehow convey things. 
Sometimes they are correct; sometimes they are incorrect. I believe if 
``junk'' bonds had been called high-yield bonds, we would have a 
different economic history. As we have learned, junk bonds play a 
useful role in the economy. For a while, when they were called 
``junk,'' people changed their views. Words have a funny way of 
working. When we say death tax, people say that sounds horrible. It 
almost sounds like something from Star Wars.
  Second, I am not one who says that this is a great thing and we must 
have it in place. In one particular area I think there is great 
resonance for eliminating this. That is, that any organic business--a 
farm, a small business, and frankly a large business--that would have 
to be broken up because of the extent of the tax should not be. A 
business is an ongoing organism. It employs sometimes 10 people and 
sometimes 10,000 people. To have to break that business up to pay any 
tax, to me, is counterproductive. That is why I have floated a proposal 
to my colleagues that eliminates this for any ongoing business that is 
passed down through the family and delays the payment of the tax until 
that business is broken up, either by the next generation or the 
generation after that. That makes sense to me.
  If we were in a world of unlimited dollars, I would be for immediate 
repeal of the whole thing--not just the family part. But we are not. We 
have to make choices. That is what this is all about. If you had to 
make one argument about what the debate concerns, it concerns choice. 
What are our choices? It has been well documented by many of my 
colleagues that 98 percent of the American people right now do not pay 
the estate tax. It has been documented that the amount of income is 
going up and up and up. You have to be millionaire before you pay that 
tax. Soon you will have to be--whatever the word is--a ``dual'' 
millionaire, have at least $2 million before you pay the tax. Only 2 
percent of Americans are affected. Of the 2 percent who pay, the very 
wealthiest, the billionaires, pay a huge proportion of that tax.
  Do they resent it? I guess they do. I give them credit for having 
built up their businesses and earned all this money. They say they pay 
taxes all along; why should they pay it again. By that argument, no one 
should pay taxes any time. We pay a sales tax. We pay an income tax. We 
pay corporate taxes. We pay property taxes. They often hit the same 
people more than once. That is unfortunate.
  Why do I say this is a choice issue? You have to compare. Since we 
don't have unlimited money, we have come to a consensus. We ought to 
buy down the debt and save Social Security which takes the majority of 
the now projected $4 trillion surplus. What do we do with the rest? I 
agree with my friend from Wyoming that tax cuts should play a part. We 
shouldn't have all spending proposals. I believe there ought to be a 
mix. Once we buy down the debt, we ought to have some tax reduction and 
some necessary spending proposals. Education and health care and 
transportation would be my priorities.
  When we do tax cuts, who do you want to help? What best helps 
America? I am here to talk about a proposal that I think 95 percent of 
all Americans would prefer rather than what is being proposed here; 
that is, to make college tuition tax deductible, particularly for 
middle-income people.
  College is a necessity in America these days. We know that. We know 
the old-time way of a job being handed down from great-grandfather to 
grandfather to father to son or great-grandmother to grandmother to 
mother to daughter is gone. We know that only people in America whose 
income level has actually gone up during this prosperity are those with 
the college education. So college is a necessity for families, for 
parents, for individuals. It is a necessity for the individual's well-
being, but it is also a necessity for the well-being of America. 
Because as we move into an ideas economy, we surely will not stay the 
No. 1 country in the world if we do not have the best educated people. 
Praise God, so far we do. But that could flow away.

  One of the main impediments to us staying No. 1 and continuing to 
have the best educated people in the world is the high cost of college 
tuition. If you are a family who is solidly in the middle class--let's 
say you make $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year--you get no help with 
those tuition bills. If you are poor, we give you a lot of help. We 
should. I love seeing ladders where poor people can walk their way up 
and establish themselves in America. If you are rich, you don't need 
it. You can afford that high college tuition. But if you are a middle-
class person, if you are that hard-working majority of Americans right 
there in the middle--let's say the husband and wife work and let's say 
their total income is $65,000, $70,000; that is pretty good until the 
tuition bill hits; until they see they have to pay $10,000 or $15,000 
or $20,000 or even $30,000 to send their child to the best possible 
school--you don't get any help at all.
  We can. We can next week when we debate the estate tax. I ask my 
colleagues, where would it be better spent? To help the very wealthy in 
America not pay the estate tax--again, all things being equal why not--
or is it better to help the middle class pay for their children's 
college? Why, when people struggle to save their $10, $20, $50 every 
week to pay for college, does Uncle Sam then take a cut when we know 
that this is good for America? When you send your child to college, you 
are not only helping that child and your family, you are helping 
America. You are helping us achieve the best educated labor force in 
the world. So why, when families struggle, and struggle they do, does 
Uncle Sam take a tax cut?
  I make a good salary as a Senator. I have no complaints. God has been 
good to me and my family. But we have two daughters, beautiful 
daughters, the love of our lives, 15 and 11. We are up late at night 
figuring out how we are going to pay for their college education.
  There are millions of American families whose children do not go to 
college because it is expensive, too expensive.

[[Page S6491]]

There are millions more--I was in Niagara Falls this Monday, 2 days 
ago. I heard of a family, the Maskas, with seven children. They are 
trying to send each one to college. A few of them are in college at the 
same time. But do you know what they had to do? They had to tell one of 
their young children, even though he was doing very well in school and 
had good boards, that he had to go to a nearby junior college because 
they couldn't afford the college he deserved to get into.
  So it is not only people who can't get into college; it is people who 
scale down the college they choose because they cannot afford the more 
expensive schools. Tuition has gone up more than any part of our 
budget. The cost of health care, from 1980 to 1995--which everyone 
talks about having a huge amount of increase--went up 175 percent; 250 
percent is tuition.
  The bottom line to all of us in this Chamber is simple. It is not 
whether we are for or against removing the estate tax in the abstract. 
It is a choice--choice--choice--choice: Do we take these hundreds of 
billions of dollars, which I believe I agree with my colleague from 
Wyoming should be sent back to the people--and send them to the very 
wealthiest people or do we give some back to the middle class to help 
educate their children and get them the best college education 
possible?

  I daresay the vast majority of voters in every one of the 50 States 
believes it is better to vote for the proposal that I will make on the 
estate tax bill. I have done it jointly. I do not know if we will be 
offering it together, but the proposal was put together by myself, the 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, and 
the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith. It is bipartisan. I urge my 
colleagues next week, when the estate tax bill comes to be debated, if 
it does, to decide the choice. Do we return the money to the wealthiest 
2 percent, especially those who do not have ongoing farms or 
businesses--because we are going to deal with them--or do we send it to 
the millions of middle-class Americans who are up late at night, 
worried about whether they can afford to send their children to school, 
and who right now get virtually no help from Washington?
  Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. So there is some order here, we wanted to go back and 
forth. It is now the Republicans' turn. It is my understanding Senator 
Domenici will speak. Following that, so colleagues on my side of the 
aisle will know, Senator Harkin will have 15 minutes. Then the last 
speaker we will have is Senator Lautenberg and he will have whatever 
time we have remaining, probably about 13 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. As I understand it, I agree: Senator Domenici, then 
Senator Harkin, and then we have Senator Hutchison.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask from the time of the Democrats, the 
minority, that Senator Harkin be given 15 minutes and Senator 
Lautenberg be given the remaining time that we have. I ask that in the 
form of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think almost everyone has heard the 
name Dr. Milton Friedman. I would like to start my brief remarks by 
quoting this very distinguished Nobel prize winning economist, who 
notes:

       The estate tax sends a bad message to savers, to wit: that 
     it is OK to spend your money on wine, women and song, but 
     don't try to save it for your kids. The moral absurdity of 
     the tax is surpassed only by its economic irrationality.

  You could stop there and say no more, and ask, do we really have a 
tax on the books of the United States that will lead Americans to waste 
their money rather than save it to leave to their children? And then to 
be add the economically irrational absurdity. One could just read that 
indictment and conclude that it is a good source of information, a 
Nobel winner in economics, a splendid proponent of entrepreneurial 
capitalism and what makes it work and what detracts from its working. 
Dr. Friedman's quote could be the sum and total of my speech. I could 
stop there.
  But let me proceed on with a couple of facts. These are real. It does 
not raise very much money. It is a big trap for the unwary. It is 
viewed as the most confiscatory tax, with its rates reaching 55 
percent, and if coupled with the generation-skipping tax, the practical 
effect of the tax is that it can grab as much as 85 cents on the 
dollar. I do not believe we in America ought to have any tax on the 
books that can take as much as 85 percent of any dollar, earned or 
owned, by any American. So that is the debate.
  It hits a diversity of people. Two groups most adversely affected are 
small businesses and family farms, which are absolutely frightened of 
the concept that at a point in time when they most need their managing 
partner, when the business or farm needs its key person the most, that 
key person has died, by definition, and up to 55 percent straight on--
without generation-skipping trusts protecting children--55 percent of 
the estate would go to the Government.
  There are all kinds of excuses and explanations. It is payable over 
time. Yes, some would say: Thank you, Federal Government, as you take 
55 percent of everything we saved and earned and built up; it is 
generous that you let us pay that 55 percent over time.

  I do not know if that means anything. It probably means the 
Government got to the point where it was absolutely absurd trying to 
make them pay that 55 percent all at once because the horror stories 
were so rampant that Congress would say: What are we up to? After 
listening to that for a while, they made it payable on the installment 
plan.
  Again, my own sense of what this does and what my constituents have 
told me is consistent with Dr. Milton Friedman: The Estate Tax 
penalizes savers. Someone who is getting old may have accumulated an 
estate perhaps made up of a nice house, a nice summer cabin, and may 
own two filling stations. Try that on as to whether they are a real 
rich person: A really nice house, a summer cabin, and two filling 
stations of the modern type today. They are going to pay a huge amount 
on the appraised value of that estate, and let's add to it that they 
saved and have $50,000 in the bank. All of these assets were acquired 
with money that had already been taxed as income under the Federal 
income tax.
  It is a double tax; I do not think anybody would doubt that. Nobody 
would come to the floor and say it is not. Assets are purchased with 
after-tax dollars and then taxed again under the estate tax.
  The approach in the bill before us is a very fair approach. There are 
some who think the bill allows rich people to avoid paying taxes. It 
does not. The change is a timing change. Death would not be the taxable 
event. Instead, a family business or farm or other asset inherited 
would be taxed when it is sold, but it is not a giveaway, as some 
allege, because the basis for calculating the tax at the time of the 
sale would be the same as if the original owner had sold it. It would 
be taxed on a carryover basis.
  That means, to make it very simple, if your entire assets are three 
warehouses when death occurs, the three warehouses have a value at the 
date of death, but they are not taxed then. When one or two or three of 
those warehouses are sold by the inheritor, they pay a capital gains 
tax using the original value, which might have been the value 10 or 15 
years ago when the asset was first acquired.
  If they make a very large amount of money when they sell it, that is 
taxed as capital gains. It is changing the taxable event from the date 
of death that triggers the tax to the date of an actual sale by one who 
inherits it. That is the event.
  It seems to me when everybody has that understood--some of the people 
who are saying this is not a fair approach, and some Americans who have 
been listening might say, Is this really fair--they will come down on 
the side that this is a much fairer approach than taxing on the value 
on the date of death.
  I compliment the chairman of the Finance Committee for his fine work. 
He is correct that this is one tax that should be abolished. This is a 
good and

[[Page S6492]]

fair tax policy, and it moves us toward tax simplification, which, in 
and of itself, is commendable and something we are always trying to do 
with our Tax Code but succeed rarely. We talk much and succeed rarely.


                        new mexico water rights

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to talk about some other things 
that should be abolished. Last week, the Solicitor of the Department of 
the Interior issued a two-paragraph memorandum that he calls a legal 
opinion. In that memo opinion, he attempts, in one fell swoop, to 
overrule New Mexico water law and the rights that are established under 
New Mexico water law which are called the rights of prior 
appropriation, the cornerstone of water rights, and the right to use 
water and how to allocate water when water is stored.
  In that same opinion, as I view it, he has abolished our water law 
and nationalized the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, one of the 
largest irrigation districts--if anyone has flown over Albuquerque, 
that big green belt is the Rio Grande, and anything you can see in 
Albuquerque on that part of the river is part of the conservancy 
district. That conservancy district is not, as the Solicitor said, ``an 
agent of the Federal Government.'' He is going to have plenty of time 
to prove that for he is going to be challenged in every court wherever 
we can, and perhaps even in the Congress, on whether that is an 
appropriate conclusion.
  Let me tell you about the creation of this Middle Rio Grande 
Conservancy District and its mission.
  First, it was created by the State of New Mexico by our State 
legislature in 1923. It was the Conservancy Act of New Mexico. It was 
not created by the Federal Government. It was created by New Mexico. It 
owes the Federal Government no money. It paid off its last rehab and 
construction loan in 1999.
  Solicitors at the Department of Interior or any other lawyers just do 
not walk around nationalizing assets. In some countries, dictators do, 
but certainly it is not the way we do things in America.
  The partial effect of this memo is to overturn New Mexico and western 
water law. In our State, water is a precious commodity. I wish we had 
more of it so it would not be so precious, but it is precious and we 
have too little of it.
  In New Mexico, we have endangered species. We have more than one, but 
one lives in the lower reaches of the Middle Rio Grande River. We have 
a silvery minnow. And in the river right over the mountains is a blunt-
nosed shiner. I wish we had fewer endangered species and more water--
that would be very good--but such is not what has been dealt New 
Mexico.
  We have a water rights system, and it essentially is a seniority 
system. This Solicitor ignores that basic premise. Adding insult to 
injury, the matter was already before our Federal courts, and on June 
19, 2000, Interior Solicitor Leshy issued a brief opinion stating that 
the Bureau of Reclamation, the entity that manages some of the water, 
has title to the water in this Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. 
How he will ever make that stand up I do not know, but I hope there are 
judges left who will get to the heart of this issue and determine that 
is not a policy nor is it fact.
  In October of 1999, the Bureau of Reclamation biological assessment 
stated the bureau did not have a controlling property interest in this 
Middle Rio Grande conservancy facility.
  On Thursday, the Albuquerque Bureau of Reclamation area manager sent 
a letter to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District that they 
operate as agent of the United States and should operate its 
``transferred works'' allow 300 cfs of water to bypass San Acacia Dam 
on the lower river for the silvery minnow.
  This places all the burden on these farmers and none on the rest of 
the users, which is inconsistent with New Mexico law again. This places 
all the burden on this one group.
  The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District's position is that 
providing water for the fish should not all be borne by their 
water users, i.e. the farmers. The burden should be shared. There are 
many big water rights holders including the city of Albuquerque. The 
Bureau of Reclamation countered that it has title to the Conservancy 
District's water so it can claim it, but that it does not have 
authority to take the Albuquerque city's water because it is other 
people's water.

  New Mexico says that the Federal Government must comply with State 
law and get a permit to change irrigation water to water for fish 
habitat. It further admonished that the Federal Government has no 
authority to interfere with the state's interstate delivery 
obligations. I believe the federal government's strategy is to divide 
the parties, as well as to avoid a hearing on the merits of the 
biological need for wet water for the fish.
  To conclude, if we are ever to have cooperation to preserve this 
endangered species, the silvery minnow, this is exactly the way not to 
do it. There was a burgeoning working together, cooperative group. I 
was part of it. Many environmental groups were part of it.
  We were looking for a way to collectively and collaboratively create 
some habit activities, and then construct some habitats for this 
minnow, and to do it with the full assistance of the Federal 
Government. Along comes this Leshy opinion and out the window goes all 
that. Now it is full speed ahead with litigation on all sides, and 
people working in the Congress to see what we can do to be fair.
  If I have not used all my time, I yield whatever I have to the 
distinguished floor manager, the Senator from Wyoming. I thank the 
Senate for the time given me this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for up to 
15 minutes.


      THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it seems as if we can take all kinds of 
time on the Senate floor--hours, days--talking about how we are going 
to benefit the richest people in America, many of whom inherited their 
wealth. After all, that is what estates are; they are wealth that is 
passed on from one generation to another. I do not have anything 
against that, but it seems to me we spend an undue amount of time 
talking about how we are going to help the richest, most well-off 
people in our country, who, by and large, can pretty well take care of 
themselves.
  So I am going to diverge a little bit because I want to talk about a 
group of individuals in this country who do not fall into that Fortune 
500 or 400 or whatever it is--the Forbes 400--people who have the big 
estates. I want to talk about a group of people who have been 
discriminated against in our society for far too long and with whom we 
in Congress had made a pact 10 years ago and President George Bush 
signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act to say that we, as 
a nation, are no longer going to tolerate discrimination against any 
individual in this country because of his or her disability.
  July 26--a couple weeks from now--will mark the 10th anniversary of 
the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As those of us who 
worked so hard for the ADA predicted, the act has taken its place among 
the great civil rights laws in our history. On July 26, 1990, we, as a 
country, committed ourselves to the principle that a disability in no 
way diminishes a person's right to participate in the cultural, 
economic, educational, political, and social mainstream.
  By eliminating barriers everywhere--from education to health care, 
from streets to public transportation, from parks to shopping malls, 
and from courthouses to Congress--the ADA has opened up new worlds to 
people with disabilities. People with disabilities are participating 
more and more in their communities, living fuller lives as students, 
coworkers, taxpayers, consumers, voters, and neighbors.
  As part of the anniversary celebration--the 10th anniversary of the 
signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act--I recently announced 
the ``A Day in the Life of the ADA'' campaign. I am asking people 
across the country to send stories about how their lives are different 
because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are going to be 
using these stories to celebrate our accomplishments and to learn more 
about what we still must do to give all Americans an equal opportunity 
to live out the American dream of independence. We already have 
received many

[[Page S6493]]

wonderful stories that show how the ADA is changing the face of 
America. I look forward to receiving many more.
  I ask the people to either send these stories by e-mail to 
[email protected] or send them to ``A Day in the Life of the 
ADA,'' c/o Senator Tom Harkin, 731 Hart Senate Office Building, 
Washington, DC, 20510.
  We want to tell these great stories in the celebration that will take 
place on July 26. There will be ceremonies at the White House. We will 
take time here in the Congress to talk more about the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, what it is, what it was meant to do, and what it has 
accomplished.

  The ``A Day in the Life of the ADA'' campaign will create a 
historical record of the profound impact the ADA has had on the daily 
life of people with disabilities. I will share with you a couple 
stories I have already received.
  I spoke with a woman in Des Moines, IA, who told me that not only had 
the ADA helped her son, who has a disability, get a job working at a 
restaurant, but that because of the fact he has that job he has become 
a role model for other kids with disabilities, to show them that they, 
too, can get jobs and work.
  I recently met and spoke with Theresa Uchytil from Urbandale, IA. 
Theresa is this year's Miss Iowa and hopefully will be next year's Miss 
America. She was born without a left hand. She told me that the ADA has 
given her and other people with disabilities confidence to pursue their 
own dreams.
  I received a letter from a woman in Waukegan, IL, who is blind, who 
wrote:

       The ADA has allowed me to receive my bank statements in 
     braille. This might seem like a small victory to some. 
     Obviously such people have never been denied the ability to 
     read something so personal as a bank statement.

  I heard from a man in Greenbelt, MD, just outside Washington, DC, who 
is deaf. I will quote him. He said:

       When I turn on the TV in the morning, I can watch captions 
     and public service announcements because of the ADA. When I 
     go to work and make phone calls, I use the telecommunication 
     relay services enacted by the ADA. In the afternoon I go to 
     the doctor's office and am able to communicate with my doctor 
     because the ADA has required the presence of a sign language 
     interpreter. After the doctor's office, I decide to go 
     shopping and am able to find a TTY (as required by the ADA) 
     in the mall to call my family and let them know that I will 
     be a bit late in arriving home. . . . In short, the ADA has 
     had a major impact on almost every facet of my life.

  I heard from a man in Berkeley, CA, who has cerebral palsy and uses a 
wheelchair. He said:

       The ADA has made me able to live independently. I can now 
     get into most every restaurant, movie theater or public 
     place. The ADA has put me on a level playing ground with the 
     rest of society. I realize that if I had been born any other 
     time before I was, I would not be able to lead the life I do. 
     I am going back to school in the fall. I hope to educate 
     people by either being a teacher or a lawyer. I do not think 
     that this would have been possible without the ADA.

  These are only a few of the many stories we are receiving. I 
encourage others to send in their stories, again, to create a 
historical record of the profound impact the ADA has had on the daily 
lives of people with disabilities, their families and friends, and 
every American. I encourage everyone to share their stories, their 
family stories, about how the ADA has improved their lives.
  For example, I would like to have stories about how the ADA has 
eliminated segregation in education and health care and the workplace, 
how the ADA has increased the accessibility of schools and colleges and 
government and the workplace for people with disabilities. I would like 
to hear stories about how the ADA has made it possible for people with 
and without disabilities to enjoy the smaller things that many of us 
take for granted--going out to a birthday party dinner as a 
family, going to a movie with a friend, a loved one, or a family 
member, going to a museum with friends on a Sunday afternoon, or just 
plain going out to the grocery store to shop for groceries.

  The ADA has improved people's lives. I need stories that show how the 
ADA has improved people's lives in any other way, maybe some I have not 
even thought about.
  We will share these stories to show how the ADA has benefited people 
with disabilities and how it has benefited all of American society--by 
integrating and pulling people from all walks of life into every facet 
of our lives in America: in education, in the workplace, travel and 
transportation, and government services.
  Again, during this time of debate on the estate tax bill, and what we 
are going to do to help some of the richest people in America, I want 
to take this time to let people know there are a lot of Americans out 
there who, because of what we did 10 years ago in passing the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, are leading fuller, richer, more independent 
lives.
  We celebrate that this year on the 10th anniversary on July 26. I ask 
everyone to help build this record of the ADA successes, again, by 
sending their stories either by e-mail, at 
[email protected], or ``A Day in the Life of the ADA,'' c/o 
Senator Tom Harkin, 731 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 
20510.
  By doing this, we will build a historical record. We will show how 
the ADA has indeed made us a better country, how the ADA has made it 
possible for people from all walks of life, regardless of their 
disability, to work, to travel, to enjoy their families and friends. 
This is what we ought to be talking about in the Senate. This is what 
America is about, not about helping the few at the top who already have 
too much but by helping those who have been discriminated against for 
so many years, shoved into nursing homes, into dark corners, 
discriminated against in every aspect of their lives, people with 
disabilities, and how we as a society came together 10 years ago, 
Republicans and Democrats, in a bipartisan fashion to say we are going 
to end this kind of discrimination once and for all.
  That was one of the great bipartisan victories I have seen in my 24 
years in the Congress. These are the kinds of things we ought to be 
debating and doing.
  I take this time to encourage these stories to be sent in, so when 
July 26 rolls around and we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, we will have personal stories about 
how it has helped people from all over the country.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the motion 
to proceed to H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. While this 
legislation has long been one of my priorities as chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Small Business, it is of critical concern to a 
sector of the United States economy that employs more than 27.5 million 
people, generates over $3.6 million in sales, and has grown by 103 
percent in the past four years. That sector is women-owned businesses.
  As one of the fastest growing segments of the economy, women-owned 
small businesses are essential to America's future prosperity. In 
recognition of this growth and their contribution to our economic life, 
I led a bipartisan group of policy makers last month to convene the 
National Women's Small Business Summit, New Leaders for a New Century, 
in Kansas City, Missouri. With the support of Senators Kerry, 
Feinstein, Hutchison, Snowe, and Landrieu, we set out, through this 
summit, to listen to women-owned small-business owners. Our goal was to 
elicit their views, concerns, and policy recommendations on the 
obstacles that women entrepreneurs face every day as they strive to run 
successful businesses.
  One issue that we heard loud and clear was that the ``death tax'' has 
to go. In fact, repeal of the estate tax was the number one tax 
priority identified by the summit participants. So it is particularly 
timely that the Senate is considering this crucial legislation that 
will eliminate a tax that discourages hard work and innovation rather 
than encouraging and rewarding it.
  Mr. President, I believe we can now agree on both sides of the aisle 
that the estate tax is highly detrimental to small and family-owned 
businesses and farms in this country. Indeed, according to recent 
findings, the estates of self-employed Americans are four times more 
likely to be subject to the estate tax than Americans who work for 
someone else. In addition, because owners of small businesses do not 
know when they will owe the estate tax or, consequently, how much they 
will owe, the tax exacts excessively high compliance costs.

[[Page S6494]]

  For example a June 1999 survey by the Center for the Study of 
Taxation found that eight of ten family-owned business reported taking 
steps, such as estate planning, to minimize the effect of this tax. 
Moreover, the Upstate New York survey revealed that the average 
spending on estate planning was almost $125,000 per business. 
Similarly, a survey by the National Association of Women Business 
owners found that the estate tax imposed almost $60,000 in estate-tax-
related costs on women business owners.
  These costs translate into thousands of dollars of valuable capital 
that women-owned businesses are pouring down the drain simply to ensure 
that the estate tax does not become the grim reaper for their 
businesses. And if anyone thinks that wasting these funds is not 
important, they should note carefully that access to capital was the 
second most pressing issue area identified at the National Women's 
Small Business Summit.
  Mr. President, compliance costs pertaining to the death tax also 
directly affect the availability of jobs. In the Upstate New York 
survey, an estimated 14 jobs per business have been lost because of the 
cost of Federal estate-tax planning to those same businesses. A study 
by Douglas Holtz-Eakin found that the estate tax caused an annual 3 
percent reduction in desired hiring by sole proprietors. A 1995 Gallup 
poll also found that three out of five businesses would add more jobs 
over the coming year if the estate tax were eliminated.
  If nothing else, this legislation boils down to one simple issue--
jobs! Small businesses are the top job creator in this country, and the 
death tax is sending those jobs to the grave. Existing businesses are 
not hiring as many workers because of estate-planning costs, and when 
the owner dies, this tax can cause the business to be liquidated just 
to pay the government. And when those doors close, they close hard and 
fast on the jobs that the business provided in our local communities. 
That is a reality we simply cannot ignore or allow to be concealed by 
erroneous claims that repealing the death tax is just a tax cut for 
``the rich.''
  Mr. President, the cost of the estate tax is high not only for small 
business owners, but for those seeking employment and for the overall 
economy. It is time that those costs are eliminated by repealing the 
estate tax once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support the motion 
to proceed and the underlying legislation for the continued success of 
America's women-owned businesses and the jobs they create.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the estate tax better 
known as the ``death tax'' is an onerous tax that should be eliminated. 
A recent poll revealed that 77 percent of the voters believe that the 
tax is unfair.
  This tax is slowly destroying family businesses by slowing growth. 
And it's unfair that families who have worked their entire lives to 
build a successful family farm or business should be penalized.
  Individuals who look forward to leaving something behind for their 
children should not be punished by confiscatory, anti-family taxes.
  In fact, after years or even generations, children are often forced 
to sell the family farm or business just to pay the tax. This is both 
unfair and unconscionable.
  However, not only is it the children who must suffer the loss of the 
family business, but the workers and their children who suffer when 
they lose their job because the business they've been working at is 
liquidated to pay the death tax.
  But it doesn't stop there. The local community, particularly small 
towns suffers as well because their customers can no longer afford to 
buy their products after having lost their job.
  The estate tax is outdated, it raises little money, and it imposes a 
large cost on the economy.
  In 1999 the estate tax generated about $24 billion. However, it is 
estimated that administrative costs to enforce the tax are over $36 
billion.
  A recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation, found that the U.S. 
economy would average nearly $11 billion per year in additional output.
  The National Association of Manufacturers states that 40 percent of 
its members had spent more than $100,000 on attorney and consultant 
fees related to death tax planning. In addition 3 out of 5 members pay 
at least $25,000 a year to prepare for the death tax.
  A 1998 study by the Joint Economic Committee found that if the death 
tax was repealed, as many as 240,000 jobs would be created and 
Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in disposable personal 
income.
  A February 2000 study by the National Assoc. of Women found that the 
death tax has a negative impact on female entrepreneurs.
  According to the study, business owners found that female 
entrepreneurs spent on average nearly $60,000 on death-tax planning.
  Some have argued that it is the rich who benefit from eliminating 
this tax. Mr. President, the wealthy and powerful, including many in 
this body, who can afford high priced legal and financial advise to 
avoid the taxes.
  Therefore, who's left holding the bag but the middle-class.
  This tax is unfair and it is anti-family. We must repeal this tax 
now. Mr. President, I urge passage of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have to conclude by 11:30. If Senator 
Lautenberg is prepared to take his time now, then we will pick up the 
remainder with the last speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I ask what the parliamentary 
situation is regarding the time allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator was allotted the remainder of the 
Democratic time, which is 15 minutes.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are going to take a couple of 
minutes to develop our opposition comments regarding the elimination of 
the inheritance tax. The repeal of it is an interesting prospect but 
not one that has much merit. My strong opposition to the ultimate 
repeal of the inheritance tax will be obvious with my comments.
  This legislation would provide a huge windfall to a handful of very 
wealthy individuals at the direct expense of ordinary, hard-working 
Americans.
  Without meaning to brag, I had a successful business operation before 
I came here. I was chairman and CEO of a very large company with over 
16,000 employees, a company that I began with two other fellows from my 
home city of Paterson, NJ--a mill town with a great industrial past, at 
the time I was growing up there, but with a dismal current situation--
the three of us, by dint of hard work. My parents and the parents of 
the two brothers with whom I was associated were all immigrants. My 
parents were brought as infants by my grandparents, and my colleagues' 
parents came at a later date and time in their lives. We were poor.
  I just retraced these roots with a newspaper because I am in the 
process of ending my Senate career come January 2001. We were very 
successful. That company we started without anything today employs 
33,000 people. It is one of America's leading examples of what happens 
when there is hard work and initiative and there is creativity in this 
great country of ours.
  I am one of those people who will fit in the 2 percent who are going 
to be principally affected by the reduction and ultimate elimination of 
the inheritance tax. I have four children. I am a proud grandfather. I 
have seven grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 6.
  When I am called upon to ascend to a different place, there is going 
to be an estate. My children have never said to me: Dad, you have to 
get rid of the inheritance tax, or, Dad, make sure we are well taken 
care of. They have had a decent life.
  I stand here to say, yes, my estate is going to pay a lot of tax when 
I go, a lot of tax. It is OK; it is all right with me. It has to be all 
right with my children.
  Talking about the three of us who ran the company ADP, we succeeded 
in this country not just because we were willing to work hard and we 
had some smarts and we did the right thing. We were made successful 
because of the resources available in this country. We were made 
successful because lots of people who struggled to make a living and 
support their families did the work

[[Page S6495]]

they had to. We were made successful because this great land in which 
we live provided the opportunity.
  We could be just as clever and just as hard working in lots of other 
places around the world, but we never could have accumulated the 
resources we had. Neither could Mr. Gates or the other people now 
almost legendary multibillionaires. They couldn't have done it without 
lots of little people, lots of people doing the scut work, doing the 
hard labor, or using their brains that were developed by investments 
through our society, through this Government, helping to develop 
schools that would cultivate the thinking and the creativity that went 
into making their contribution. A lot of them, as was true in my own 
company, got rewarded, but they were not in the $20 million estate 
group or even higher. They weren't in the number 374 with an average 
amount of assets of $52 million.
  They are not in that group. The group isn't very large, but it is 
very powerful. This group is very powerful. When they speak, everybody 
here listens--just about. They hear from the leaders of these 
companies. They hear from the people who bought the boats, the private 
yachts, and the airplanes. Now there is almost a contest within our 
society--and I know some of these folks--about who can build the 
biggest yacht. They are up to over 300 feet now. That is the largest 
private yacht sailing the seas. It has a crew of almost 50 people. I 
don't know what is going to happen to that man's estate, but I don't 
think he deserves to have that estate protected without acknowledging 
the fact that he owes something back to this society. He has an 
obligation--his estate has an obligation to make sure something remains 
so there can be other entrepreneurs, business leaders, scientists, and 
physicians created, to make sure this country is able to carry on.
  Part of what is in the basic ethic of this Nation of ours--and it 
goes back to its founding days--is hard work; do your share. I used to 
hear in my household from my grandmother that you had to ``leave 
something over for those who need help.'' You could not just take it 
and walk away. What is going to happen to that work ethic?
  Bill Gates is worth, they say, somewhere around $100 billion. I don't 
know him personally, but I hear he is a real good guy, very 
philanthropic. He gives away a lot of money to very noble causes. But 
if he chose to say, look, my estate will pay the 55-percent tax, that 
will leave, by my calculation, $40 billion or $60 billion to be divided 
among his children. I don't hold him out to be evil or the devil. I use 
the arithmetic description to try to make the point; it is to make the 
point that we ought to be very careful.
  None of us like taxes. I don't like them. But I know they are 
necessary. If you want to belong to ``Country Club America,'' you have 
to pay the dues--especially if you succeed, as only you can in this 
country of ours because of the resources that are here. Some of them 
are natural resources. We have a wonderful location and the ability to 
ship goods from our oceans. This is one incredible place. Boy, are you 
lucky to belong to ``Country Club America.'' But I think it is 
necessary to pay your dues. I think it is necessary for me to pay dues. 
I think it is necessary for my estate to pay dues. My estate will be 
assessed at the high rate. It is not going to leave my kids poverty 
stricken, nor is it going to leave the 346 wealthiest people who will 
leave estates at $52 million poverty stricken.
  I don't even think the heirs to estates of from $10 million to $20 
million--there are 688 of them and they will pay $3.7 million in 
taxes--will be impoverished. We are looking at estates of from $5 
million to $10 million. There are roughly 1,800 of them. Those estate 
taxes will be $1.9 million. That leaves $4 million to the 
beneficiaries. That doesn't sound like impoverishment.
  Look at what the picture is. On this chart, we have the 374 largest 
estates. If the Republican tax plan goes through, they will save $11.8 
million each. That is just 374 estates. And roughly 300,000 estates 
will pay zero estate tax.
  Is that fair? That is the question. Is it fair that we take such good 
care of people who have a $50 million estate, on average? And some are 
substantially larger. Where is the conscience here? Roughly, 2 percent 
of the people in the country have estates that pay any tax at all. Out 
of the 2.3 million, only 2 percent have any inheritance tax at all. 
Most people don't leave estates that hit inheritance tax levels. They 
don't pay taxes. By the way, all through this successful person's 
lifetime--and some are successful because they pick the right father--
those estates pay a very small portion of the inheritance tax revenues. 
But we want to reduce the portion that they do.

  All of the rest of the people in America, the people who work hard 
and try to provide for their kids, the people who try to educate their 
children so they can go on and succeed in their own right, they don't 
pay any estate tax because before you must pay estate taxes, you have 
quite a hurdle to get over.
  Also, for the benefit of those considering this, let's remember that 
if it is a husband and a wife in a family, that family can give $20,000 
a year to each child. If they have three kids, they can give $60,000 to 
those kids. The wealthy people we are talking about can do that. They 
can give $60,000 to those children, and if it is a 20-year lifetime, 
you are talking about $1.2 million that you can give away absolutely 
tax free. You can do that to lots of people. They don't have to be your 
kids. They can be your friends, your neighbors, or distant relatives. 
You can give a lot of money away in a lifetime. Then you get a $1.3 
million exemption before you start paying any tax at all. So we are 
looking at a tax that is not fair.
  This Nation has its taxes structured on the basis of graduated 
incomes, and you pay higher taxes. We have had tax reductions. Now, 
capital gains is 20 percent. The maximum rate we have on income is 39 
percent. I am always willing to look at ways to reduce that.
  Frankly, I think maybe one of the things we ought to consider--and I 
haven't run the costs on it--is to say that for people over 65 we even 
start reducing that 20 percent. Maybe by the time somebody is 70, there 
would be no capital gains tax, and maybe that will stimulate their 
investments into the economy and charities--the amount of money given 
philanthropically--because there is a pebble in the shoe, and also a 
generosity of spirit. Some people say they would rather give it to a 
university, a hospital, or a library, than just leave it out there to 
be taxed. That is a good idea. I know very few people who have these 
big fortunes who don't do a lot philanthropically. I also know some 
people who are in the multibillions of dollars worth of estates who 
have said they are not going to leave anything to their kids, that they 
will have given them their head start in a lifetime.
  I see that the Chair is poised to strike the gavel. I thank you for 
the time I have had. I hope we are mindful of the public reaction. 
Taking care of the rich is not an obligation in which we have to 
specialize.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on this side, I believe we have 17 minutes 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). There are 16 minutes 35 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to both 
Senators from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of this 
bill. There is no question that what the Senator from New Jersey has 
just said has some resonance when you talk about paying dues to 
society. But this is not money that has never been taxed before. This 
is money that was taxed when it was earned. It is money that was taxed 
when it was invested. It has been taxed and taxed and taxed. Who could 
say that an average family who now pays 40 percent of their income in 
taxes is not giving back enough to society?

  On top of all of the taxes they paid on this money, now we are saying 
we want to change the American dream, which has always been to come to 
our country--come to America where you have the freedom to work as hard 
as you want to work, do as well as you want to do, and give your kids a 
better chance than you have. That is what the American dream has always 
been. Those who are against this tax are saying: No, no. That is not 
the American

[[Page S6496]]

dream anymore. What we are saying in America is come to America and you 
can be this successful, and as long as you don't go beyond this, it is 
OK.
  We should not put boundaries on success in America. That built our 
country. Hard work of people who are judged on what they are and not on 
who their grandparents were is what has built this country.
  The estate tax takes away part of the incentive for people who work 
so hard to give their kids a better chance than they had.
  It hurts small business. Seventy percent of all family-owned 
businesses do not survive through the second generation, and 87 percent 
don't make it to the third generation. That affects the small business 
itself, but it affects a lot of people who have jobs in those small 
businesses. It is the little people who are getting hurt because they 
don't have jobs anymore.
  I have read stories where the main employer in a small town had a 
family-owned business and could not make it because they had to sell 
the assets of the business in order to pay inheritance taxes.
  Among a survey of black-owned enterprises, nearly one-third say their 
heirs will have to sell the businesses to pay the death tax, and more 
than 80 percent report they do not have sufficient assets to pay the 
death tax. In fact, the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber 
of Commerce has written a letter in support of this bill because he 
says the total net worth of African Americans is only 1.2 percent 
versus 14 percent of the population.
  The CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce supports the bill 
before us today. He said African Americans have been stuck at 1.2 
percent of the total net worth of this country since the end of the 
Civil War in 1865, and that getting rid of the death tax will start to 
create a new legacy and begin a cycle of wealth building for blacks in 
this country.
  The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce supports the bill before us 
today. They write: When one family loses its business due to the unfair 
estate tax, which really is a death tax, the face of an entire 
community changes. Employers become ex-employers. The economy suffers 
and a thriving self-supporting group of individuals vanish.
  This is a gut issue for small businesses in our country.
  The reason is that the assets of a small business are not readily 
sellable. The assets of a farm and a ranch are oftentimes valued at 
much more than their actual productivity. So if they have to have a 
valuation that puts them in the category of needing to pay an estate 
tax, they have no choice; they have to sell the land in order to pay 
that tax.
  It is not right. It is not perpetuating the American dream.
  Let me talk about conservation and the effect of the death tax on 
conservation. This is an article published in the Dallas Morning News, 
written by David Langford of San Antonio, the executive vice president 
of the Texas Wildlife Association. He says it so much better than I 
ever could.
       Since 1851, my family has worked the land in the Texas Hill 
     Country. Through the ups and downs of the past 148 years, we 
     have run flour mills, farmed, ranched and offered hunting and 
     fishing opportunities.
       Our land also serves as a habitat for many species of 
     birds, including two endangered migratory songbirds--the 
     golden-cheeked warbler and the black-capped vireo. As a 
     result, my family and I consider ourselves stewards of 
     precious natural resources.
       But as is the case for much of the wildlife habitat in this 
     country, the estate tax threatens to tear it apart. The need 
     to pay large estate tax bills often forces families to sell 
     or develop environmentally sensitive land. The estate tax is 
     the No. 1 destroyer of wildlife habitat in this country.
       Although we have managed to hold our land together, it 
     hasn't been easy. Before my mother died in 1993, we did 
     everything we could to protect our family's land. Like 
     millions of other family businesses, we paid accountants, tax 
     attorneys and estate planners to help manage our assets in 
     ways to avoid the tax, but it still came to this.
       In order to pay the estate taxes and keep the land together 
     when my mother died, we had to sell almost everything she 
     owned, including her home. My wife and I had to sell nearly 
     everything we owned, including our home, and move into a two-
     bedroom condominium. We also had to borrow money for 35 years 
     from the Federal Land Bank.
       Because the value of the land has increased since 1993, if 
     we were killed in a car accident tomorrow, my children would 
     owe more inheritance taxes than the amount I originally had 
     to borrow to pay mine. But that isn't the end of the story. 
     Not only would they pay more taxes than me, but they still 
     would inherit my 35-year note that they would have to 
     continue to pay.
       Could my children then keep the land? The short answer is 
     no. It probably would become a subdivision.

  Mr. President, these are people whom I hear the other side keep 
calling ``rich,'' needing to pay their debt to society. These are 
people who care so much about the land that has been in their families 
since 1851 that they now live in a two-bedroom condominium to keep that 
land together.
  That is not the American way. That is not right in this country. It 
is not good for the environment. It is not good for conservation. It is 
not good for small businesses that create jobs. And it doesn't produce 
1 percent of the revenue of this country.
  It sends a powerful message that you can only succeed in America this 
much, and if you have this much, we will take part of what you have 
worked so hard to earn, what your parents and grandparents may have 
worked so hard to give you, and we are going to say, I'm sorry, you've 
done too much.
  Mr. President, that is not the American dream. I agree with the U.S. 
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; I agree with the U.S. Black Chamber of 
Commerce. They want the opportunity for their members to create a 
stability through the generations for their families. I stand with the 
people who want to keep their land together, to keep a tradition in 
their families. That is the American way. I hope we will send this bill 
to the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this has been a great debate. I count 
myself privileged to have the opportunity to close it.
  I am proud of my colleague from Texas. If Members were not moved by 
the story the Senator portrayed, of people being forced to sacrifice 
their homes to keep their family farm together, then they don't have a 
heart and they don't care about the values that at least I consider to 
be the underpinnings of America.
  No issue better defines the difference between the two great 
political parties than this issue. I am prepared to have every election 
in American history determined on this issue and this issue alone. The 
issue is very simple. People work their whole lives, they pay taxes on 
every dollar they earn; they scrimp, they save, they sacrifice, and 
they build up a business or they build up a family farm, and, when they 
die, they pass that business or that farm on to their children. In 
fact, that is the reason many people work and sacrifice.
  My mama didn't graduate from high school, but she had a dream I was 
going to college. She sacrificed her whole life to achieve that dream. 
We don't believe that, when people have worked a lifetime to build up a 
family farm, or family business, or family assets, that their children 
ought to have to sell off their parents' life's work to give the 
Government up to 55 cents out of every dollar of everything they have 
accumulated in their lives. We think it is fundamentally wrong. We 
think it is un-American. And we believe it ought to end.
  When we cut through all the political rhetoric of everything our 
Democrat colleagues have said in this debate, their reasons for 
opposing repeal of the death tax come down to two arguments. The first 
argument is, force people to sell off that family business, force them 
to sell that family farm, force them to sell off the lifework of their 
parents because Government can spend the money better.
  We reject that. We believe that is a clear indication that somehow 
the opponents of repeal don't understand what America is really about. 
Those of us who favor repeal of the death tax don't believe Government 
can spend that money better. And we don't think it is right to take it 
from the people who built those assets up.
  The second argument our Democrat colleagues make in opposition to 
repealing the death tax is that repeal would help rich people. When we 
reduce this argument down, it is an argument that the Government ought 
to level families, that somehow if a person were born in a family that 
owned a family business or family farm, that is not fair--the fact that 
your parents sacrificed and worked and scrimped to

[[Page S6497]]

build it, it is still not fair for you have it, and at least part of it 
ought to be taken away from you.
  Let me explain why I reject this logic. First of all, the only thing 
I have ever been bequeathed or expect to be bequeathed was, when my 
grandmama's brother, my great uncle Bill, died, he left me a cardboard 
suitcase full of sports clippings. Had it been baseball cards, I would 
be a rich man today.
  The family of our agriculture commissioner in Texas, a lady named 
Susan Combs, owned a ranch that had been in the family for four 
generations. When her father died, she was forced to sell off part of 
that ranch to pay death taxes. Now our Democrat colleagues would have 
us believe that is good because that levels society.
  How did it help me? How did making Susan Combs sell off ranchland 
that her family had owned for four generations help me because my 
family didn't own a ranch or didn't own a business? I cannot see how I 
was helped, or how my children are helped. How does tearing down one 
family help build up another? How does destroying the life dream of one 
family build a life dream for another family? We do not believe it 
does. We think this is fundamentally wrong.

  Granted, some rich people may benefit. But so will a lot more people 
who are not rich. I do not have any inherent objection to people being 
rich. If they didn't steal the money, if they worked hard for it, if 
they created jobs for people from families like I am from and they 
benefited from it, that is what America is about. I do not have a hate 
for rich people. I do not understand our Democrat colleagues who say 
they love capitalism but seem to hate capitalists, who claim to love 
progress but appear to harbor a distaste for the people who create it. 
We do not believe we can build up America by tearing down families. We 
believe we can build up America by giving people a chance to compete 
and use their God-given talents. But we don't want people to have to 
sell off their farm or sell off their business to give Government a new 
tax on money that has already been taxed. We do not think death ought 
to be a taxable event.
  I congratulate those who have been involved in this debate. I think 
it is a good debate. I think it is a debate that defines what we stand 
for and what our Democrat colleagues stand for. We believe when you 
work a lifetime to build up a business or a family farm, it ought to be 
yours for keeps. If we are successful, we are going to kill the death 
tax--yes, you will still have to pay taxes on any gain if the business 
or farm is sold--but when you build up a family farm or build up a 
family business, it is yours for keeps. When you die, the people you 
built it for, your children, are going to get it. If you want to give 
it away, if you want to donate it to Texas A&M, that is God's work; or 
if you want to contribute it to trying to cure cancer, but you ought to 
get to decide how it is disposed of, not the Federal Government, not 
some bureaucrat at the IRS, and not some politician in Congress. That 
is what this debate is about. It is an important debate. I urge my 
colleagues, when we cast our votes on this bill, to vote to kill the 
death tax.

                          ____________________