[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 103 (Thursday, September 7, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7322-H7335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the further
consideration of the veto message of the President of the United States
on the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
phaseout the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period.
The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill,
the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?
(For veto message, see proceedings of the House of September 6, 2000,
at page H7240.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield 30 minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, Americans are being taxed at the highest
rate since World War II. The worst example of this is the death tax, a
provision that punishes Americans trying to leave a family farm or
small business to their loved ones. Instead of being left a legacy
built on hard work and dedication, grieving families are subjected to
taxes so high, many are forced to sell their inheritance just to pay
the IRS.
{time} 1415
That is completely unfair. In my northern California district, some
of the leading employers are family farms and small businesses. These
hard-working Americans deserve tax fairness and the opportunity to
pursue the American dream without being punished by the IRS. Let us do
the right thing by voting to override the President's veto of the death
tax.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are about to embark on the closing of this session
and the question is whether we can get something done in a bipartisan
way or whether or not we are going to move forward and have tax policy
by looking for vetoes and by press conferences.
Clearly, everybody knows if my colleagues had any concern at all
about small businesses and farmers being protected by estate taxes,
then my colleagues would have joined with Democrats and petitioned the
President to sign a bill so that we can give them instant relief, I
mean relief now, not like this 10-year plan that my colleagues have
that is going to bust the bank.
There is still time for us to work together on this and other
matters. If, on the other hand, Republicans would rather have sound
bites rather than sound tax policy and attempts to just make it an
issue that the President has vetoed this, then we will not have an
opportunity to come together and agree on a compromise so that we can
both go home and tell the small business people and the farmers that we
have protected them against inheritance tax.
So what I am suggesting to my colleagues, we can have our
differences, but let us try to set a tone this evening that as we
conclude this session that we will be in a better position to
compromise and to get something signed into law. It is ridiculous to
assume that every time we have an agreement that we are going to kick
it up a notch and take away from the surpluses such an extent that we
cannot give targeted tax cuts, that we cannot give prescription drug
benefits to our aging, that we cannot give some assistance to our
working families.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first volume to see how we are going to
carry ourselves as we conclude this session, and I do hope that, even
though we may disagree, that we do not have to be disagreeable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to the
GOP's attempt to override the President's veto of the repeal on estate
taxes. President Clinton and my Democratic colleagues were right the
first time on the estate tax and nothing has changed. This bill gives
the wealthiest 5 percent of all Americans a $105 billion tax break.
This is just one more fiscally irresponsible bill to consume the non-
Social Security budget surplus revenues before we address the needs of
working families.
If Congress overrides the veto of H.R. 8, we will be well on our way
to giving $649 billion over 10 years in tax breaks for the wealthy.
None of these tax bills will help working families. But passing a
feasible and affordable Medicare prescription drug benefit will help
all working families--not just wealthy families. Governor Bush, and my
Republican colleagues, prefer to spend more money on the dead through
the estate tax repeal, than on those who are living and need a
worthwhile prescription drug benefit. Governor Bush proposes a
prescription drug benefit that would force seniors to pay high out-of-
pocket-expenses that lacks the guarantee of comprehensive coverage.
Seniors need a solid prescription drug plan that offers them guarantees
and predictability. They don't need a repeal in the estate tax. The GOP
needs to reassess its priorities.
Offering a Medicare early buy-in plan to those who retire early but
need health coverage will also help America's working families. The men
and women in my district don't sit on estates worth $20 million. They
are forced to work until they are physically unable. When that time
comes for those working men and women, I want to give them something
back. I don't want to have to tell them that the 106th Congress spent
their Medicare prescription drug benefit, or early buy-in health
insurance on a tax break for Bill Gates.
All of the benefits from estate tax repeal will go to taxpayers in
the top 5 percent income group. Those taxpayers earn at least $130,000
per year. Ninety percent of the tax cut benefits will go to those in
the top 1 percent income group--those earning $319,000 per year. The
GOP is attempting to mislead U.S. taxpayers through scare tactics. They
have been throwing anecdotal ``evidence'' that family-owned businesses
and farms face bankruptcy due to the evil estate tax. This is simply
not true. For every dollar of farm estate tax cuts from H.R. 8, 99
dollars will go to other kinds of estates. For every dollar of small or
family business estate tax cut benefits, 95 dollars or more will go to
other estates. These other estates comprise the very wealthiest of all
estates in the U.S.--those estates worth more than $20 million.
The estate tax repeal--and the numerous other tax measures passed by
the House--should be scrutinized with a measure of fairness. It hardly
seems fair to come to the floor of the House week after week to provide
hand over fist full of tax break dollars to the wealthiest U.S.
taxpayers, when we haven't even addressed Medicare's solvency. In FY
2000, the federal estate tax, if left unchanged, is expected to raise
$27 billion. That's more than double the total amount of federal income
taxes paid by the bottom half of all taxpayers. Some leading estate tax
repeal advocates, such as Steve Forbes and Dick Armey would suggest
that we triple taxes on the bottom half of all taxpayers--with their
flat tax proposals--to make up the lost revenue from the estate tax
repeal.
Our children will be hurt by the estate tax repeal. This bill costs
over $105 billion over 10 years and $50 billion every year after 2011.
We could rebuild of repair every one of our schools for a little over
$105 billion. We could also provide health insurance to 7.7 million of
the 11 million children currently without health insurance for $105
billion. We could also enroll an additional 836,000 children in Head
Start with the $105 billion Republicans want to spend on the wealthiest
2 percent of Americans.
Before any Member of the House votes to override this bill, I want
you to consider the opportunities lost. This bill isn't about helping
out family-owned businesses and small farms. It's about helping the
wealthiest taxpayers in America and denying seniors a solid
prescription drug benefit. I urge my colleagues to sustain the
President's veto and vote no on this bill.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel), but the fact is that his proposal does not repeal the
death tax.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this veto override and
our bipartisan effort to eliminate the death tax. In his veto message,
President Clinton made several arguments defending the taxation of
death, and he proposed targeted tax credits for small businesses and
family farms.
[[Page H7323]]
Unfortunately, this targeted approach being touted by President
Clinton and Vice President Gore will target American families right out
of relief. First, and perhaps most importantly, their proposal
maintains the fundamental unfairness of the death tax.
It says that at the end of your life, after you worked hard to
provide a legacy for your family, the government is still entitled to
nearly half the fruits of your labor. I cannot accept this, Mr.
Speaker, because it so grossly violates the fundamental virtues of
thrift, diligence, and hard work.
Mr. Speaker, 95 percent of Americans believe that it is wrong to tax
income during your life and then once again because you die to tax it
once again.
Secondly, President Clinton and Vice President Gore believe that they
can exempt family-owned farms and businesses by raising the family-
owned business exemption to $2.5 million. Well, I stand here to tell my
colleagues that it will not work.
In 1997, with the very best of intentions, this Congress created the
family-owned business exemption in order to try to protect small
businesses from the devastating effects of this tax. In order to
qualify for this exemption, however, a family must meet many statutory
definitions. These definitions have proven to be so overly complex that
most estate planners tell us only 3 percent of their clients even
qualify. Worse yet, those families who attempt to claim relief under
these definitions find that the IRS challenges them two thirds of the
time.
So in the rare instance when a family qualifies, they find themselves
spending thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to defend themselves
from the IRS. Despite very good intentions, Congress simply cannot
recreate in tax law the complex family relationships that exist in the
real world, so the oppositions approach will not work. And we should
not pretend that it will work.
The Clinton-Gore proposal maintains high death tax rates and provides
hollow relief for family farms and for businesses. Most importantly, it
does not repeal the death tax. There is only one way to rid the code of
this immoral, unfair, and economically unsound tax and that is to
eliminate it.
I urge my colleagues to keep their commitments to their constituents
and to vote in favor of the veto override.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, over the years, I, too, have heard some
small business owners and family farmers and I empathize with their
situation and I have worked to provide estate tax relief to farmers and
small business owners as we did in 1997.
I am supporting a fiscally responsible alternative that gives estate
tax relief where it is needed. That proposal would provide a married
couple with a farm or a small business with a $4 million estate tax
exclusion in 2001. Today's phases in tax relief over the next 10 years.
Let me repeat the choice before us, 10 years of waiting or immediate
relief.
I do not want to face constituents who may lose a parent before the
year 2010 and then learn that the promised estate tax relief does not
exist. It is irresponsible for us to talk of relief in the future when
we can provide that relief today.
Over the years, I have also heard from farmers and business people
who recognize the importance of a strong economy which includes paying
down the national debt. They agree with Alan Greenspan that a debt
buyback helps the economy more than a tax cut.
If they knew that they could get a $4 million benefit and a debt-free
economy they would, too, be supporting this veto. Once the veto is
sustained, the majority will have to explain to them why the promised
tax relief in fact hurts their economic future.
During the earlier debate, I heard from a friend who is a family
farmer and a transplant recipient. He asked me when he could expect
estate tax relief and when he could get help for his prescription
drugs. Under the majority's tax plan, he gets either one or the other.
Under the responsible $4 million exclusion, he could get both tax
relief and Medicare prescription drug benefits and a debt-free economy.
Most of my constituents do not ask me about estate tax relief. They
want Medicare prescription drug coverage.
If this veto is not sustained, they will get nothing to help them
with their current needs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer) claim the time of the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Dunn)?
Mr. ARCHER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
controls the time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, the question is a simple one, I say to my
friend from New York (Mr. Rangel), should the death of a family member
be a taxable event? Should the passing of one's mother or father who
have worked hard to build a business to pass on to their descendants,
should that event, that personal tragedy, should that be a taxable
event?
If my colleagues believe that it should be, then vote to sustain the
veto of the President. If my colleagues think it should not be a tax
event, then vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer)
for yielding me some time, and I suspect that we are going to hear
throughout this period of debate the weary class warfare argument from
the defenders of the death tax, that this is a tax for the wealthy.
Rather than get caught up in revenue projections and distribution
tables and effective dates and whether we have an immediate tax relief
or not in our prescription drugs, I would like to tell my colleagues
briefly about a constituent family of mine, the Eiffert family. Howard
Eiffert began a lumber business in 1965, with very little capital and
through a lot of hard work has built a business, the Boone County
Lumber Company, that now employs 30 full-time employees. His two sons,
Greg and Brad, are looking forward to taking over that family business.
Howard is now 66 years of age and hopes that he can pass that lumber
business on to his sons who want to continue the business. But because
the tax is still on the books, Greg and Brad Eiffert are required to
pay $35,000 a year. Let me repeat that, Greg and Brad Eiffert, the sons
of the founder of this business, are paying $35,000 a year in annual
premiums for a life insurance policy, the sole source of which proceeds
will be used to hopefully pay off the entirety of the tax bill when
that estate, that business is passed to the next generation.
Now, $35,000 a year could hire a very good full-time employee, not to
mention the fact that if they do not pay this fee every year, that the
death tax will require the closure of the business, which means, in
addition to the loss of the property taxes and the payroll taxes and
the income taxes that they already pay, the loss of 30 steady
paychecks. I urge this body to vote to override the President's veto.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the House has to consider an override
of the President's veto today. The President should have done the right
thing and signed the bill to bury the Death Tax once and for all.
Unfortunately, he didn't, and I rise to urge my colleagues to join me
in voting to override the President's veto.
We have heard the same-old, tired class-warfare rhetoric from the
defenders of the Death Tax. We have heard that it only benefits the
rich. My friends, your vote should be based on one question and one
question alone--do you think that death should be a taxable event?
Should death trigger a tax as high as 55 percent on a lifetime's worth
of hard-work? My answer is no. That is why we should undue the harm
done by the President's veto pen.
We can talk about this issue in the context of revenue projections,
distribution tables and effective dates. But I want to take a minute to
tell you about the Eiffert family in Columbia, Missouri. In 1965,
Howard Eiffert started Boone County Lumber Company. Today, his son Brad
and Greg help run the business. Howard is now 66 years old and would
like to pass the business on to his sons. But this isn't as easy as it
seems. The Death Tax looms over this dream like a dark cloud. The
Eifferts
[[Page H7324]]
pay $35,000 a year in insurance premiums in preparation to pay the
Death Tax when the day of Howard's passing comes. Howard and his sons
Brad and Greg are the real faces of the so-called ``rich'' that
supporters of keeping the Death Tax love to demonize. Keeping the Death
Tax on the books is not fair. Fairness dictates that the Eiffert's
hard-work should be rewarded, and the Boone County Lumber Company
should continue into the next generation.
The Eiffert's situation is but one example of why we should kill the
Death Tax. This tax is inefficient. It kills jobs. It punishes those
willing to take risks and allows the tax code to wreck a lifetime of
hard-work. But most importantly, retaining the Death Tax is plain
wrong. I know it, and the Eiffret family certainly knows it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's
ill-conceived veto.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who certainly has a reputation of being a friend
of the farmer and small business.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if we believe that repeal of the estate
tax is more important than eliminating the national debt and protecting
the integrity of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, vote to
override the veto of this bill.
However, if we agree that eliminating the national debt and
protecting Social Security and Medicare is a more important priority
than any new spending or tax cuts, then vote to sustain this veto.
Let me tell my colleagues what I am for. I am for estate tax relief
for all estates up to $4 million effective January 1, 2001. The
Democratic alternative that could have been signed into law would have
immediately repealed the estate tax for all family-owned small
businesses, farms, and ranches under $4 million and reduced rates on
all other estates. It would provide immediate relief, instead of
delaying relief for 9 years as the bill before us would do.
Now, we hear a lot today about the $4.6 trillion surplus, but I would
remind our colleagues in this body, these are just projections, and we
know it.
Budget projections that have changed repeatedly for the good over the
past 3 years, they could just as easily change for the worse in the
next 3 years. What happens then if we have already pocketed and spent
these surpluses?
It is easy to get applause in a town hall meeting by repeating the
line ``you deserve the tax cut because the surplus is your money'' and
that is the truth. But that line does not tell the whole truth. What it
leaves out is that we still have a $5.6 trillion national debt, $7.9
trillion unfunded liability on Social Security and trillions of dollars
of unfunded liabilities in Medicare and other retirement programs.
Those who justify massive tax cuts first by saying that the surplus
belongs to the American people and should be returned to them forget to
mention that these debts also belong to the American people.
The cost of this bill before us that has been vetoed would keep
growing and growing just at the time Social Security and Medicare began
to face financial problems in 2010. Until we deal with the long-term
financial problems of facing Social Security, we need to be fiscally
responsible about any tax or spending bills that would place a greater
burden on the budget in the next decade.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been making
speeches as we already heard about small business owners and ranchers
are serious about helping these folks, I hope they will take the
President up on his offer to sign legislation that would provide
immediate and fiscally responsible estate tax relief for small
businesses and family farms.
The folks I represent back home want a meaningful estate tax that is
enacted into law, not more political speeches about whose fault it is
that we did not accomplish anything. I want folks who have a farm and a
ranch and a small business just like my friend, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) to be able to leave the fruits of their labor to
their children, but I do not want to leave future generations with a
massive national debt and unfunded liabilities in Social Security and
Medicare because we want to do the politically popular thing in the
year 2000.
{time} 1430
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, I
thank the Speaker, and I thank my friend from Texas who preceded me in
the well, because he failed to point out one essential part of the
equation. You see, it is legitimate to have differences of opinion and
to disagree without being disagreeable, and Mr. Speaker, I think it is
painfully apparent.
Our friends on the left believe there is a higher and better use for
your money in the coffers of the Federal Government. My friend from New
York said it very clearly in the Wall Street Journal: ``We will have to
figure out who hasn't been hit so hard and take away some of what they
have earned.''
But the other portion, my friend from Texas left out. Should the Vice
President of the United States become President of the United States,
just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, he outlined a budget plan that would spend
all of the surplus; and while I do not doubt my friend from Texas'
commitment to cutting the deficit and the national debt, the fact is
our friends on the left had 40 years and they were so caught up in
spending that they spent all the monies, including the Social Security
monies.
So what we say is this, and, again, I would enjoin my friends to
disagree without being disagreeable: the fact is there is a philosophy
on the left to take away what people earn. The fact is also that many
of our friends on the left, fully one-third of the minority, including
every member of the Democratic Party serving here from Tennessee, voted
for death tax relief.
We ask folks to join with us to say let us put this unfair death tax
to death, because we can continue to pay down our debt and we can also
get rid of this onerous tax. As my friend from Colorado has said, ``no
taxation without respiration.'' It is unfair to have to visit the
undertaker and the tax collector on the same day.
I represent family farmers who are fiscally conservative, who care
about Social Security and Medicare, but also care about their children
and also care about their fellow citizens, and we should get rid of
this tax. Vote to override the veto.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say to the
House today that I am voting today to sustain the Presidential veto,
and I would like to ask my Republican friends to refrain from putting
Presidential politics into this issue.
This issue is extremely important. We have the lives of people who
need Medicare, people who need Social Security. The vast majority of
working families do not need us to cut funds away now for a tax break
for the very, very rich. Two percent of the population will benefit
from this tax.
I am saying to this Congress and to America, it is time now that we
talked about people who need Social Security, people who need Medicare.
The repeal of the Federal estate tax benefits a relatively small number
of individuals. We have got to begin to think about the entire American
public.
What about the rest of us? What about those of us who are on low and
middle incomes who need better schools? You keep talking about better
education. Let us put your money where your mouth is. You keep using
political nuances. We must solve the problems of this country. We need
less crowded schools; we need an increase in minimum wage. There are so
many things we need before we take all of the money off the top for 2
percent of the wealthy.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant), this body's most outspoken advocate for the working
people of this country.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, World War I is over. It is time to stop taxing death. It
is out of control. America is literally taxed from the womb to the
tomb, from the doctor to the undertaker, and the
[[Page H7325]]
White House has blinders on. They say it helps the rich.
The facts are clear: the average small business in America spends
$35,000 a year on insurance, attorneys and accountants for their estate
planning, and that does not include the tax they will pay down the
road.
It has gotten so bad, and I wanted to compliment this chairman on
this bill, that at one point in our history the estate tax was 77
percent. Seventy-seven percent. Are we nuts?
And this class warfare business that continues to hit the floor, rich
man, poor man, is un-American. Whatever happened to the old slogan in
America, ``be all you can be''? Work hard, build a nest egg for your
family.
The veto gives us a new slogan. The President is saying ``join the
pack, give it back. Share your nest egg. Be damned with your family.
Hard work and industrial behavior does not mean anything in America.''
Mr. Speaker, that is not capitalism; that is communism. That is not
America; that is totalitarianism. That is wrong.
Is it any wonder America is taxed off? On behalf of many families, I
say today, tax this. It is time to override this President's veto, and
it is time for the Democrats to step up.
Enough is enough. This Tax Code has turned away families, rewarded
dependency, penalized achievement, subsidized illegitimacy, and now
takes us to the cemetery with a tax collector. Beam me up.
I will vote to override this veto, and I encourage every Member to
look carefully at this vote. It is more important than just election
politics for the White House.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a knowledgeable member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with what the previous speaker just said is
that 98 percent of the American people are not affected by this. This
is clearly an effort to reward 2 percent of the American people. That
is what the estate tax is about.
Let me give you the strategy that has been employed here by the
Republicans. Let us have a big tax cut, $1.3 trillion. It went nowhere
with the American people. Let us separate it out in pieces. It went
nowhere with the American people. Let us contest the President's veto.
It went nowhere with the American people. And do you know what, they
are still at it. They are still at it, even though they see polling
data that indicates clearly that the issue is crystallized and the
public sides with us on this.
We could do something constructive on this issue. The Democrats came
up with a great alternative here today, $4 million of exemptions that
would take care of all of the people that they have noted here today.
The previous speaker said ``override the President's veto.'' The
overwhelming truth here is that the President offered a good fix on
this issue, along with us in the Democratic Caucus, and the other side
refused to accept it. Stand with the President on this veto today.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's veto of H.R. 8,
the Death Tax Elimination Act. One point I want to make, those 2
percent we keep hearing from our friends on the right, or on the left,
I should say, those 2 percent hire a substantial amount of the people
that work in this country. Keep that in mind.
This estate tax plan is simple, and we need to make sure that we
sustain the President's veto.
It is disgraceful as a result of the estate tax more than 70 percent
of family-owned businesses do not survive the second generation.
Seventy percent of family-owned businesses do not survive the second
generation.
Earlier this summer we had a vigorous debate about free trade,
protecting jobs of American men and women, and then forcing 70 percent
of Americans to sell off a family-owned business to protect American
jobs. It this the American dream? I do not think so.
This estate tax is simply Uncle Sam double-dipping into the pockets
of hard-working Americans. First we pay income taxes, then Uncle Sam
comes back for more and more taxes, and the estate tax, which is now
taking 55 percent of the value of an estate upon death.
This estate tax is extremely hard felt in my State of California
where land prices are extremely high. Please vote to override.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue where there is truth on
both sides. There are competing interests here. There is an interest in
really dealing with hard-working Americans who have paid tax on their
money, but there is also an interest of concentration of wealth.
As a society, do we really want a threshold of no threshold on estate
tax? Someone being able to transfer $20 billion, and families
transferring $20 billion? As a society, that is a bad thing.
I think what we need to do as we look at what the reality is,
$675,000 in today's world is not an acceptable number, and that number
should be raised. We should have a debate and we should have policy,
and we should not be playing games with the American people like the
majority party is doing right now.
I have legislation that I am going to introduce literally right now
that would raise that $675,000 to $5 million and index it for
inflation. I do not know if $5 million is the magic number, but the
reality is that is what Americans want that would be good public
policy; that would be a compromise that the American people would
support and the President would probably sign.
If we want to make policy, pass this legislation, and stop playing
games with the American people.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I met Bill and Mary Cross and Richard and
Judy Beuth in Northern Illinois. They are the 2 percent. They get up
early, they work all day, just to put food on the table of Americans.
They are only 2 percent; and, therefore, if we follow the minority,
they are insignificant and they do not count. But they are America's
farmers.
When Richard Beuth's mom died in 1995, and then dad died in 1998, for
the privilege of being able to farm this Centennial Farm, which has
been in the family for over 100 years, he had to mortgage the farm for
$185,000. They are not rich. These are American farmers, and I
represented many of them as an attorney, and I was at the auction sale
when the gavel fell that cut a family farm in half just to pay the
death taxes. They are not rich. They put the food on the table of
America.
Mr. President, look at them in the eyes, the ones who get up real
early and work 20 hours a day, crying out for help. America's farmers
are being called ``rich'' and ``insignificant.'' This is the bill to
help them out, Mr. President; and you vetoed it, and you looked at them
right in the eye and you said ``you don't count.''
Well, they do count. The Crosses, the Beuths, the Wilmarths, the
Eberts, the Kappenmans, the little people across the world that put the
food on the table. They are America's farmers. It is because of them
and for them that we should override this veto.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our distinguished minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I just heard from the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois speak with passion, and I would say to him with
all due respect that the plan that you have offered will take 10 years
to phase in to help those farmers that the gentleman just talked about.
The plan that we have been talking about and we have been arguing for
will cover up to $4 million in exemptions for businesses and for
farmers like the gentleman has just described, and it will take effect
immediately. That is the difference.
Mr. Speaker, years from today, when historians consider the effort to
repeal the estate tax, they will say never have
[[Page H7326]]
so many spent so much time to give so much money to so very few.
{time} 1445
When I listen to the folks that I represent back home, and I know
many Members have just come from their districts, what they are talking
to me about is better schools, a stronger social security system,
improving Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit. They want us
to reduce the national debt.
That is what I think all of the Members are hearing. There are not a
heck of a lot of people telling us to put these priorities on the back
burner so we can repeal the estate tax for the Bill Gates' of the
world.
There is a reason for that. Ninety-eight percent of all Americans
will get absolutely nothing out of the estate tax, nothing. But there
are a few people who stand to gain, they are the richest 2 percent of
Americans, never mind that it will cost $50 billion a year for the
richest 2 percent to get the benefits of this bill.
Let me just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we have a sensible
alternative that I have just described. It is a reasonable alternative.
It goes into effect immediately. It is the better approach. It is the
more responsible, fiscally, approach to this problem. I hope we will
sustain the President's veto on this important piece of legislation.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the respected whip of the House.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, today we have a final chance to save family farms and
small businesses that will be sacrificed to pay the unfair death tax.
This vote is about whether or not we stop the Federal government from
confiscating farms and businesses through an aggressive tax that
attaches a penalty to the end of life.
It is not the top rich. The rich do not pay these taxes. It is people
like me when I used to be in the pest control businesses. It is a
plumbing business that puts all of its assets aside as they build this
business and create jobs.
These are people that do not make $100,000, $200,000, $400,000 a
year. Most of the time these people take in $60,000 or so to fund their
own families. Then when they die, the government comes in in a very
unfair way and takes their businesses, and also costs jobs because the
people that work for those businesses lose their jobs because they have
to liquidate in order to pay this onerous tax.
The death tax punishes Americans who achieve their financial dreams.
What is worse, it targets American farmers and these small business
owners that are trying to sustain what they have worked their whole
lives to build. When the death tax comes due, the surviving relatives
are already wrestling with the tough decisions that follow a loss in
their family, and this tax complicates matters by forcing family
members to liquidate these farms and these small family businesses.
This is wrong. It is unfair. It has been unfair for years. Most
Americans recognize that this tax sends the very wrong message. That is
why voters overwhelmingly support our proposal to bury the death tax.
This debate also raises a critical question about our national
priorities: Should surplus dollars be kept in Washington to be spent by
politicians, or should that money be returned to the men and women who
earned it?
Our position is clear. Republicans believe that the American people
can identify and address their own priorities. We believe that they are
far better equipped to know their best interests than any Washington
bureaucracy ever can be.
Republicans support two options to return the surplus to the American
people: We should either return the surplus to them through tax relief,
or give the surplus back to the American people by paying down on the
public debt.
By supporting this bill, by overriding the President's veto, Members
will end the death tax today and empower American families tomorrow.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I represent the State of North Dakota. I represent more
production acres of agriculture than any other Member of the House of
Representatives. My, my, my, I have not heard so much concern about our
family farmers in four terms in this Congress than I am hearing in the
course of this debate.
The fact of the matter is, it is time for a little truth in
advertising. This bill is not about family farms, this bill is about
tax relief for the wealthiest few in this country.
Let us just take a look at the numbers to put this in perspective. Of
taxable estates, those containing farm assets from 1995, 1996, and 1997
represented one-tenth of 1 percent of the taxable estates. That was
before the increase, and a significant increase, bringing it to a $2.6
million unified credit today.
It is time we raised that credit. We have had some powerful
presentations on the other side. The comments of the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) were particularly well done in terms of
actually having gone to an auction and basically about a family having
to sell assets to pay the estate tax.
If indeed that is the situation, even for a few family farms, let us
address it and let us address it right now. The majority bill does not
do that. The vetoed bill does not do that. It phases in this credit
over time, leaving relief for the very end for those families that are
subject to so much discussion on the other side.
I want Members to look at this chart right here. This chart shows who
is going to get help. The blue is the Democrat alternative. The red is
the Republican bill. This is in year one of this Republican plan. We
can see the help for these families is right now under the Democrat
bill. They say, see us later, see us later, under the majority bill.
Okay, let us go down a few years. This is the year 2009, almost a
decade from where we stand today, relief under the Democrat bill, and
here is relief under the Republican bill, barely phased in. Basically,
they have to wait 10 years if they are the kind of family farmer, if
they are the small business owner that the other side is talking so
much today about.
If the need is so urgent, and the majority whip said that this is the
final chance, this is the final chance to save family farms and small
businesses from being confiscated from the death tax, then why in
goodness' name does he wait 10 years to phase in the relief?
If it is that much of a problem, let us do something about it and do
it now. That is what the Democrat alternative does. We do it in a way
that does not bust the budget, that does not take away our chance to
pay off the national debt.
By skewing this whole package for the wealthiest few at the very top,
they deprive relief to those who need it, and they bust the budget
while they are at it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
(Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, the death tax is confiscatory taxation at
its very worst. Many family farms and small businesses do not have the
cash flow necessary to pay the inheritance tax. Many family farms and
small businesses must go out of business and use the assets to pay this
devastating tax.
This veto override is our opportunity to solve this situation, to do
what is right for the small businesses of this Nation. Besides, the
cost of collection of this tax eats up most of the receipts it brings
in. We must override this very unwise veto.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to override the President's veto of H.R. 8. Estate taxes do place a
burden on American small businesses and farmers, but this vote is
nothing more than a back-door attempt to enact the first installment of
the $2 trillion tax cut that my Republican colleagues want to do.
[[Page H7327]]
I guess it is frustrating, Mr. Speaker, because I wonder where our
Republican progressives have gone to in seeing these kinds of tax cuts.
Let me read a quote that I picked up over the weekend: ``I do not
believe that any advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to
the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in
their entirety of such enormous fortunes as have been accumulated in
America. The tax could be made to bear more heavily upon persons
residing out of the country. Such a heavy progressive tax is of course
in no shape or way a tax on thrift or industry, for thrift and industry
have ceased to possess any measurable importance in the acquisition of
the swollen fortunes of which I speak.''
I will not read the rest, but that was by Theodore Roosevelt, a
progressive Republican who knew what it was not to let the richest
people in this world save taxes where it should be spent.
America is about a democracy, about saying, hey, let us give
everybody a chance. Sure, we can take care of the family farms, of the
small businesses, and in parts of the country where our homesteads and
houses have accumulated, that would be done. But the Republican
strategy is going to fail because it means that there will be no estate
tax relief this year or next year for small businesses and farmers.
Our colleagues, if they were serious about an estate tax, they would
have worked with some of us and said, hey, we had an alternative that
took care of all the problems we hear about, whether it is the local
auction or not. But does Bill Gates really need a tax cut anymore than
the Rockefellers did in the last century? No.
The Republican plan helps the wealthiest 2 percent of the American
families and does nothing for the 98 percent of Americans who are still
out there. What we need to do is pass real estate tax relief that will
help the small estates, family farms, and the people who have their
family homes. That is what we need to do.
I would hope that we would override this veto, because then it takes
a big chunk out of trying to also pay down the debt, take care of
social security, Medicare, the defense of our country, everything else
we want to do.
Let us do something reasonable. We can make estate tax cuts part of
the package before the end of this year, but we need to do it after we
sustain this President's veto.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
I have heard here an attempt to make this debate one about the super
rich instead of the family next door; to make it about only 2 percent
of the super rich instead of half of the American population; to make
it partisan, when in fact it is very bipartisan.
This legislation went to the President backed by Democrats and
Republicans. A big number of Democrats supported this, 65, in this
House. While Al Gore is campaigning it as some Republican plot, the
entire delegation of Tennessee voted for this, including all of the
Democrats, including our distinguished African-American colleague, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a keynote speaker at the Democrat
convention.
Before we question the motives of people supporting abolishing the
death tax, let us consider that more is at stake here. This is not
about the super rich. Bill Gates will never pay this tax and everyone
knows it. Those are the only people who we know to a certainty who will
never pay this tax.
But working men and women will pay not just the 55 percent, not just
the 60 percent confiscatory rate, they will pay 100 percent when they
lose their jobs, when the business for which they work is sold out to
pay the tax man. It is time for the death tax to die.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there they go again, Fantasy Island. The
Republican majority would rather fight for the wealthiest interests in
America than agree to eliminating the estate tax for 98 percent of
Americans. They would rather put at risk the soundness of our economy,
the stability of social security, the reliability of Medicare, and the
ability to pay down the debt while investing in our children's
education than give up on a plan that gives a $10.5 million average cut
to 329 estates, and a $50 billion cut to the top 2 percent of estates.
That is the truth.
The truth is more than half of the benefits of this Republican bill
will go to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans. I support
the Democratic alternative which gives all estates relief now, not 10
years from now, as this bill does.
The President was right to veto this bill. He wants and I want a tax
relief bill which is fiscally responsible and is targeted for the
majority of working families. This bill would drain more than $50
billion annually to benefit just thousands of families while taking
resources that should be used to strengthen social security and
Medicare for millions of families.
{time} 1500
I want tax cuts which will protect family farms and small businesses,
but that will also help families send their kids to college, provide
for long-term care, pay for child care, and help communities build
badly needed schools.
We can do this, Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership will sit
down at the table of democracy and reach agreement with those of us who
were also elected to reason with one another on behalf of the American
people.
If the majority will unlock itself from the grip of the special
interest, we can legislate constructively and cooperatively on behalf
of all of the people and just not for a very few of the people. Let us
sustain this veto.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to my colleagues a letter that I
received just yesterday from a constituent of mine in Barrington,
Illinois.
``Dear Congressman Crane: I urge you to override President Clinton's
veto of H.R. 8 (death tax elimination).
``I personally have a friend whose grandfather owns a farm which has
been in his family since 1732. When he passes away, his family will
have no choice but to sell the farm in order to pay the death tax.
``Every person who owns such a property or business started up with
money which was saved after paying regular income taxes earlier. It
just doesn't seem fair to force them to sell or pay again.
``Sincerely, Roger Hedberg, Sr.''
The death tax means an end to a family's heritage. That farm has been
in the family for 268 years. If someday they sell the family farm it
should be their own choice. They should never be compelled to do so to
pay a tax that should never have been enacted.
The death tax is an immoral, obscene tax. It is a tax belonging to a
philosophy of envy, fear and greed. That is the wrong philosophy for
America in the 21st century.
The death tax should be repealed immediately, and I urge my
colleagues to do the right thing and vote to override the President's
ill-advised veto of this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority Whip, asked the question do we
spend the surplus or do we send it back? I would remind the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that, when he first came to Congress, our Nation
was about $1 trillion in debt. It is now $5.7 trillion in debt.
See, contrary to what some folks would have us think, the debt is not
only disappearing, it is growing and it is growing by the month. These
figures are all available in the monthly Treasury statements. I
encourage every American to look it up on the World Wide Web.
See if you do so, you will discover that just in the past year, the
debt of this Nation has increased by $40 billion, $40 billion. That is
40,000 million dollars that we are more in debt than we were a year
ago.
They do talk about a surplus, and there is a surplus. But the only
surplus is in the trust funds, things like the Social Security Trust
Fund, things like
[[Page H7328]]
the Medicare Trust Fund, things like the Military Retiree Trust Fund.
See, if we remove the trust funds, then we spend $13 billion more than
we have collected in taxes.
So when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and others say let us
give 2 percent of the American people a tax break, I ask them, and
please answer me, whose trust fund are they going to steal it from?
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), the highly respected Majority Leader of the House.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, every day of their life, moms and dads all over this
great Nation get up and go to work. They go to work and they earn a
living. They take care of their family. They try to build a home. They
try to educate their children. They pay their bills faithfully, decent,
honest, hard working American people. From every dime's worth of income
they earn during the year, they pay their taxes faithfully. When there
is something else, they try to save, and maybe they tried to build, and
maybe they try to accumulate something.
As they work all their life for their children's well-being, for
their comfort, for their safety, their security, their health, they
also believe that, if we are really successful, mom, we do a good job,
we keep the family farm together, we build this small business into
something, create a few jobs for some of our friends and neighbors,
when it is all over, we might be able to leave it to our children. They
are not working that hard. Paying their taxes, paying their bills,
saving, being double taxed on what little bit they can save, watching
their little business grow because they are looking forward to the day
when they die and leave it to the government.
Yet, this government, with its tax code which is rife with silliness,
disincentive, hurt and harm for every American for every time they ever
do the right thing stands uncorrected.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has labored in his vineyard for
30 years. For 30 years he has seen the silliness multiply in the Tax
Code. Today he said let us just take one onerous, obnoxious, wrongful,
unfair provision out of the Tax Code.
Let us stop the death tax. Why? It is not about the money. If my
colleagues think it is about the money, they have missed the point. It
is about the character of our Nation. It is about loving a Nation that
loves its children and build its own future.
Yes, we have prosperity. The American people gave it to us, not this
Federal Government. Because we have prosperity, we have $268 billion in
budget surplus.
For the 30 years that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) was here,
26 in the minority, not one dime was ever committed by Congress when
the Democrats were in the majority to buying down a penny's worth of
national debt. They raided the Social Security Trust Funds and spent it
on all kinds of risky spending schemes. They went on and paid all that
debt and let it mount up.
Now America, because it built its small businesses and sustained its
small farms, America gave us the surplus. Eighty-five to 95 percent of
this surplus is already committed to debt reduction. In just the last
few years since the Republicans took the majority, we will have paid
down by the end of this year nearly a half a trillion dollars in debt.
That is 500 billion dollars in debt.
After that, we said let us get rid of one onerous, obnoxious, stupid,
unfair provision of the Tax Code, the death tax. The Democrats as
always, as always, with every tax reduction one ever brings to the
floor of this House, label it a risky tax scheme for only the best,
only the richest, and they regret that that fellow is going to die and
get a tax break.
Well, let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, one does not give the
dead guy a tax break. He is in his grave. What one does is abstain from
stealing his life's work legacy from his children. That is right. To
take a man and a woman's lifetime's work away from their children is
wrong. No government should do that, certainly not a government that
embraces American values and family values. It is wrong.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is correct to be here where he
is today in his 30th year of service of the Congress of the United
States. He says once, once in 30 years, let us do something that is
right in the Tax Code, let us get rid of some silliness, add some
sanity.
I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), and I implore
all of my colleagues to vote to override the President's ill-advised
veto. Hold that family estate, that family farm, that small business
for the children of that loving mother and father that worked so hard
for all those years, and keep those jobs for those loyal employees who
would otherwise be driven out of work. Let us do the right thing. Just
once in 30 years, join with the chairman and do the right thing.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why I will vote to
uphold the President's veto today.
I am on Record as having voted for H.R. 8 as well as the Democratic
plan. The estate tax puts an undue burden on small business owners and
farms who are the heart of America's middle class, often making it
difficult to pass their enterprises on to family members.
It is my firm belief that the estate tax in its current form needs to
be changed. There is no argument there on either side. The President
has shown that he is willing to sit down and work out a solution with
all parties rather than this be bipartisan.
He said and wrote to us, the entire House of Representatives, on
August the 31st, ``I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 8,
legislation to phase out Federal estate, gift, and generation-skipping
transfer taxes over a 10-year period. While I support and would sign
targeted and fiscally responsible legislation that provides estate tax
relief for small businesses, family farms, and principal residences
along the lines proposed by the House and the Senate Democrats. . . .''
This should not be a partisan issue. I am opposed to allowing
taxpayers to be pawns in an election year battle. This political
posturing today is unfortunate. I have voted for many of the very taxes
that have been proposed on both sides of the aisle, and I voted for the
repeal of this tax. But we need to take a look at all of this together.
As we say in science, the gestalt, the total body of proposed tax cuts
to see what it adds up to.
We cannot jeopardize the surplus, and we cannot jeopardize future
generations. This is what we need to be smart about. Before this is all
over by October 1, I am sure we will be.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means, and a great American hero.
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we must repeal the death tax
that penalizes American values. The dollars are there, unlike what the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) ahead of me said.
Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration and most of their
Democratic allies support the death tax, and yet they make all sorts of
arguments to justify yet another unfair tax. Do not believe them. They
are up to their old class warfare tricks.
Here is the truth. For too long the death tax has punished our
families and small businesses. The death tax punishes families who save
and who have worked hard all their lives. Worst of all, the death tax
punishes their grieving children who have to sell their parents hard-
earned assets just to pay the tax man. The death tax punishes those
workers who are employed by the small businesses and farms. That is
just not right.
Americans hope to achieve the American dream and be able to share the
fruits of their success with their children. We do not need Washington
tax collectors operating a toll booth on the way to heaven.
Unfortunately, President Clinton and his fellow supporters of the death
tax just do not get it. They think Washington is more important than
American values.
There were 65 Democrats who voted to repeal the death tax in June.
Will
[[Page H7329]]
they have the courage to do what is right for America, or will they
change their vote and blindly follow their party in an election year?
Enough is enough. It is time to start repealing taxes on American
values. Get rid of that toll booth on the way to heaven. Repeal the
death tax.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the moment of truth has arrived, and that is do we want
to give relief to small business people in connection with estate taxes
and to farmers, or are we really looking for a campaign issue; and that
is that we force the President to have a veto.
Clearly, there is a way to give relief immediately, and that is to
sustain the President's veto and demand that, as we conclude our work
in this session, that the President give some priority to giving relief
to estate taxes.
I can assure my colleagues, in speaking on behalf of the Democrats,
that we would like to join with you in this effort where we can go home
and campaign on so many other issues that we disagree with. But at
least on this issue, we would be able to say that all estates that come
up to $4 million would be exempt, that all individuals would
automatically have $1 million exemption.
{time} 1515
Oh no, it would not take care of the very, very, very rich; but it
would take care of the working people that work every day and protect
the assets that they leave for their children and their children's
children.
Now, it is true that we can fight on each and every issue. We can
fight against prescription drugs for the elderly, we can fight in terms
of giving tremendous tax cuts, again to the very rich; but it would
seem to me that we would be enhancing the reputation of this great
august body if we could just find something that we could agree on and
just not dismiss the Democratic alternative.
We know that our Republican colleagues know that we protect the
people that should be protected under our substitute. We know that the
President would never have vetoed this bill if he thought it was the
right thing to do by the people who could be hurt with an estate tax.
And the most important thing is that the American people can tell the
difference between a political ploy and those people who want to
provide a legislative solution to what amounts to a real problem.
Again, I am saying that Republicans and Democrats have not talked
with each other too much during the last couple of years; and that is
mainly because, well, they have chosen to look for confrontation; they
have chosen to take the areas that we agree with and kick it up a notch
to make certain that the President is going to veto. This is so whether
we talk about minimum wage, the marriage penalty tax, and now as we
deal with estate taxes.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to those people who want to support the
President, support the American people, support small businesses,
support the farmers, that this is a great opportunity for us to reach
across the aisle and have this bipartisan effort so that we can tell
the American people that we can work together, even though we did not
start off that way. This is an opportunity for us to do it, and I
suggest to my colleagues that we try working together before the
election, at least on this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, greed is a bad word; but profit is a good
word, and we have got to separate the two.
I do not like all the class warfare that has been played on this
issue. But while we are talking about it, let me say to my colleagues
that if they want big corporations and multinational corporations to
buy small businesses at a fire sale price from small business people
who are the engine of the American economy, then vote to defend the
President's veto here. My colleagues should want to side with small
business people and not with large corporations and multinational
corporations that are going to gobble up all these small business
people. That is literally what happens when a fire sale is forced. That
is not fair. That is not right.
But let us not trash the free enterprise system. It is what people in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union really wanted of the American
Dream, an opportunity to have things for their family that they never
had or to have a business and to literally go to work and know that the
sky is the limit on opportunity.
So let us defend the free enterprise system, but let us most
importantly defend the small guy, the small business people and the
family farmer. That is what we are trying to do. It is the right thing.
And I do think everybody should join in in a bipartisan way.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I think we see ourselves in a situation that is good news-bad news.
The good news is that we are talking about reform, and there is no
dispute in this country that we need reform. Everybody is talking about
it. The Democrats have had an alternative; the Republicans have a total
repeal. The bad news is that there is no real interest in reform. It is
just interest in sending a message.
If my Republican colleagues were really interested in pure tax reform
and helping the people they talk about, they would have gone down and
worked out with the President something he would sign. And he said he
would sign something as long as it was reasonable. But this is just
total repeal. And my colleagues knew that he would veto that, and that
is mean.
I am one of those who voted with my Republican colleagues because I
thought perhaps they would lead us into a meaningful discussion of how
we could have reasonable inheritance tax reform. My colleagues have not
done that. They have failed in that leadership. They have been more
interested in a political message than in trying to solve this problem
in the United States. Shame on them.
And that is why some of us are going to start supporting the
President in his veto, because the Republicans did not want reform,
they just wanted a message.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our distinguished minority
leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
President's veto, a veto that speaks volumes about the differences that
divide us, about our competing agendas.
This weekend I was back home in my district in St. Louis; and I went
door to door, as I always do, and I heard from the working families who
live in my district. In all the many conversations I had with my
constituents, I did not get one question about what we were going to do
to get rid of the estate tax. I did not hear one soul tell me to wipe
out taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent of the American people.
The people in my district, like I expect the people in my colleagues'
districts, are not interested in tax breaks for the wealthiest
Americans. They are not interested in going back to the Reagan years,
the Bush years of red ink and large deficits and high interest rates
and high inflation and high unemployment.
Let me tell my colleagues what the people did talk about. They talked
about when we are going to get a prescription medicine program for
senior citizens in Medicare. They talked about getting protections from
HMOs and insurance companies, so that, God forbid, the doctors and
nurses were making important medical decisions and not accountants and
HMO executives. They talked about education. They talked about school
buildings. They talked about teachers. They talked about getting rid of
guns in schools. They talked about Social Security and Medicare. They
talked about paying down the national debt. They talked about doing
something about middle-income tax relief.
Please hear this, my colleagues. This bill is a bad bill. It is a
reckless bill. It does absolutely nothing for 98 percent of the
American people. Now, we proposed an alternative that would get
something done if our friends would
[[Page H7330]]
compromise. We said, let us give immediate relief to more than half the
people with the smaller estates. We said, let us cut the estate tax
immediately by 20 percent. We said that we can relieve 99 percent of
all small businesses and family farmers from paying any estate tax.
We could have done that months ago. We can do that today. The
President would sign a bill that was our alternative, that would give
people immediate needed relief from the estate tax. But we did not do
that, because, I guess, we have to spend this precious time on the
floor getting this veto sustained.
This bill would give the largest 330 estates nationwide more than
$10.5 million in tax cuts, on average, every year. These estates are
valued at more than $20 million apiece and, meanwhile; 98 percent of
our people would not see a dime in tax cuts. Add it up. When we add up
all the figures, we are draining our surpluses. This bill in the second
10 years would cost over $750 billion.
Let me finally say this. Last year, the Republicans sent us a
trillion dollar tax cut. The President vetoed it. They did not even
bring it back here for an override. So this year there was a better
idea: let us cut it up into little sausage pieces and maybe we can fog
one past the American people.
People do not want to spend the majority of this surplus on tax cuts,
and they sure do not want to spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans. They want us to pay down the national debt. They want us to
take care of Social Security and Medicare. They want us to spend these
last days that we have on the floor in this session doing prescription
medicine for our senior citizens in the Medicare program, getting a
patients' bill of rights, and doing something to have better school
buildings and more teachers and better education. They want us to have
a minimum wage increase. They do not want this bill.
I urge Members to sustain the President's veto. Let us come back with
the Democratic alternative. Let us get something done for the American
people. Let us pay down the debt.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, today we continue our commitment to end the death tax
that haunts American families, farms and businesses. Today, we try to
break the logjam created by yet another veto by a President who is
determined to stonewall bipartisan actions by the Congress of the
United States.
I listened with fascination to the minority leader who just spoke.
Yes, there are differences that divide us. Major differences. Six years
ago he proposed to reduce the exclusion in the death tax to $200,000.
Where is this newfound change in his position? The change came because
the Republicans got a majority in the Congress that year. So today the
Democrats say, oh, but we have a better alternative.
The gentleman even referred to what revenue losses will occur in the
second 10 years. Who knows? No revenue estimator, public or private,
can give us that number. The longest estimate that is out there is 10
years. But what we do know is that in our bill, that the President has
just vetoed, the capital gains tax occurs on every sale of an asset
from the wealthy estates left by the Bill Gateses of this world. Now,
the Democrats do not tell us that. That is fairness.
We say death as an event should not trigger a tax. But when those
assets are sold, handed down by the very wealthy, the tax is paid. That
did not show up until in the second 10 years, but we do not get a
revenue estimate on that because the estimators will not look out that
far.
So I listen to this rhetoric of these numbers that are thrown around
that are unsupportable and then the Democrats say, we will give
immediate relief to the small businesses. But it is a shell game,
another Democrat shell game. We think that our relief is under the
shell, yet when we pick it up, the bean is not there. Because it is a
fact that under the small business and farm exemption, only 3 percent
of the people ever qualify for it. In the meantime, they have spent
millions of dollars on estate planners.
So the Democrats say they are giving us something, but only 3 percent
of the people they say they are going to help will ever qualify. Now,
that is a reality. Just talk to anybody who knows anything about estate
planning.
Repealing the death tax is the right thing for America. In the land
of the free and the home of the brave it is astonishing that we let
people be taxed after they die. That is certainly not the American
Dream. It's an American nightmare.
My friend from Texas says people get taxed on their way to heaven. I
say the death tax has given purgatory a new meaning. Death as an event
should not trigger a tax. That is wrong. It should occur, as I
mentioned, when the assets are sold.
Some have said the death tax is ghoulish, to think that someone who
works for an entire life building up wealth, saving for children,
starting a business, running a farm or ranch and paying taxes the
entire time gets hit once more from the grave. But as my friend, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), said, it is not the one who dies who
pays the tax. It is the heirs who are left.
{time} 1530
Now the Democrats will say, Oh, there are only 2 percent of the
people that are affected, 98 percent get nothing; the 2 percent that
die are not the receivers of the legacy, it is often spread out amongst
hundreds of people. And they do not consider the jobs that are created
by the 98 percent who work in those family farms and businesses
unaffected. They say they are unaffected. They are affected directly.
They lose their jobs.
Oprah Winfrey had it right when she said, I get angry every time I
think about when I die, the Government will take 55 percent of what I
have earned and saved. And why I am angry is because I have already
paid taxes once. Why should I be taxed again? That is unfair.
The ancient Egyptians built elaborate fortresses and tunnels and even
posted guards at tombs to stop grave robbers. In today's America, we
call that estate planning, millions of dollars paid every year for
estate planning.
This bill really helps those people who are going to be hit by a
hidden tax. Because any middle-income American that has savings and
401(k)s and IRAs will pay a 73-percent tax on their IRAs and their
401(k)s at the time of their death.
This is unfair and we should repeal it and vote to override the
President's veto.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, the federal government must not impose an
excessive tax burden on working families, and I support targeted tax
cuts to help families meet their needs and save for the future.
However, the Republican bill to eliminate the estate tax (H.R. 8)
would cut nearly $50 billion from the federal budget per year once
fully phased in. Such substantial cuts would harm our ability to
strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide a prescription drug
benefit to seniors, pay down the national debt, and provide our
essential government services.
I am very concerned about the impact these cuts would have on
families, businesses and communities across the country. In addition,
the benefits of this cut favor the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
When we prioritize tax cuts over health, education, and labor, we
make sacrifices that impact all Americans. We saw this in the House
Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill where the proposed $175 billion
Republican tax cut translated into significant cuts in these important
programs. Working families are being asked to make these sacrifices in
exchange for a tax cut that would give $300 billion to the 400 richest
Americans. $300 billion would pay for a prescription drug benefit for
seniors for 10 years!
President Clinton has stated that he would support estate tax relief
that is targeted to farm and small business estates. I agree that we
should target estate tax cuts to the small businesses and farmers in
greatest need. Democrats have offered a substitute that raises the
special exclusion for farm and small business estates from $675,000 to
$2 million per person. Any unused portion of the exclusion can be
transferred to the surviving spouse, meaning that the total exclusion
for farm and small business owning couples would become $4 million.
The substitute also increases the general exclusion to $1 million by
2006 and lowers the top marginal estate tax rate from 55% to 44%.
The cost of our bill is approximately $22 billion over ten years. Not
only is the Democratic approach more fiscally responsible, I believe
that it is a much better alternative for small
[[Page H7331]]
business owners and farmers because it will benefit nearly all of their
families, and it provides immediate relief rather than the 10 year
phase in that is included in the Republican bill.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has not allowed us to bring
this proposal to a vote. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
override of the President's veto.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
strong support for estate tax reform. Small businesses and farm owners
should not be penalized for their success nor should they have to worry
about their ability to pass the family business on to future
generations. However, I will continue to oppose the estate tax relief
as proposed in the bill under consideration today because it offers
significant benefit for the very wealthy individuals subject to this
tax without regard to the economy, future revenues or tax fairness. I
will vote to sustain President Clinton's veto of this misguided effort.
Many middle class Americans believe they do not receive value for
their taxes. An important component of any tax reform debate should
focus on renewing taxpayer's confidence that they are not only being
taxed fairly, but that their tax dollars are being spent wisely. It
concerns me that we are considering repeal of the estate tax today
without a broader discussion of reform of our tax policy. We don't make
decisions in a vacuum and the decisions we make today will have an
impact on future revenues and spending on priority initiatives. A vote
to override the President's veto today can be viewed as a vote to give
the wealthiest one percent of Americans an $850 billion tax break over
the next twenty years. This is contrary to the wishes of two
Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, who advocated
for enactment of the estate tax.
In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt said the following regarding this
progressive tax, ``Such a tax would be one of the methods by which we
should try to preserve a measurable quality of opportunity for the
people of the generation growing to manhood.'' During his Inaugural
Address in 1909, William Howard Taft said, ``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.''
Historically, the richest in our society are the ones who pay the
majority of the estate tax, and the original justification for this
progressive tax is still applicable today, but reform is needed as our
economy and times change.
Currently, only two percent of people who die have enough wealth to
be subject to the estate tax. Of the two percent who pay the estate
tax, only three percent are small business owners or farmers. Economic
experts point out that the majority of assets taxed under the estate
tax are unrealized capital gains and tax-exempt bonds which have never
been taxed.
I support estate tax relief which would exempt 99% of family farm
estates from estate taxes. The measure I voted for earlier this year
would have removed two-thirds of those who pay the estate tax from the
tax rolls and increased the family exclusion for farms and closely held
businesses to $4 million by increasing the limit on the small business
exclusion from $1.3 million to $2 million per spouse. This would have
provided real relief immediately. H.R. 8 would not provide relief to a
single farm or small business from the estate tax until 2010. This
relief is needed now, not in ten years.
The measure I support would immediately increase the exemption
equivalent of the unified credit against estate and gift taxes to $1.1
million. It also would provide a twenty percent across the board
reduction to the estate and gift tax rates.
I support estate tax reform which maintains fiscal responsibility.
The cost of H.R. 8 is not offset and will cost the Treasury $105
billion over ten years and $750 billion over the second ten years.
Fiscal discipline of the past eight years has brought us to time where
we are enjoying economic growth and prosperity. Projected surpluses
still require us to make difficult decisions about priorities, and I
believe that the President was correct to veto this fiscally
irresponsible tax bill.
I voted in favor of a fiscally responsible proposal, the Rangel
Amendment to H.R. 8, to provide immediate relief to two-thirds of the
individuals in Missouri faced with estate tax liability. On July 13,
the New York Times reported that if H.R. 8 would have been law in 1997,
more than half of the tax savings would have gone to approximately 400
individuals who died that year leaving individual estates worth more
than $20 million each. By contrast, the New York Times reported that
the Democratic alternative which I supported would have exempted
approximately 95% of all farmers who paid estate tax in 1997 and 88% of
small business owners who paid the tax.
If the President's veto is sustained today, I hope my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle will come together to find a targeted, fiscally
responsible compromise which can be enacted into law before the 106th
Congress adjourns this fall.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, today we are working to repeal the death tax
so that family businesses can be passed down to children and
grandchildren, and family farms can continue to exist. Less than half
of all family-owned businesses survive the death of a founder and only
about five percent survive to the third generation. Under the tax laws
that we currently have, it is cheaper for someone to sell a business
before dying and pay the capital gains tax than to pass it on to his
children.
It's clear and simple--the death tax is double taxation. Small
business owners and family farmers pay taxes throughout their lifetime.
At the time of death, they are assessed another tax on the value of
their property. It would be like giving a friend a gift, which you
already paid sales tax on, followed by your friend receiving a bill
from the IRS for another cut. It is absurd.
Repealing the death tax makes good economic sense. One out of every
three small-business owners expects all or part of their business will
have to be liquidated when death taxes come due. That doesn't just mean
that the family loses the business. It also means that the employees of
that business are laid off. Repealing the death tax will not only save
those jobs that would be lost--it will create new jobs. Death tax
liabilities caused 26 percent of family businesses to reduce capital
investments--investments that would have resulted in new jobs. Nearly
60 percent of businesses owners say they would add jobs over the coming
year if death taxes were eliminated. Economists predict that repealing
the tax would create 200,000 extra jobs every year.
Estate and gift tax collections amounted to less than 1.4 percent of
the federal government's current annual budget. This tax is not worth
the costs they impose on the economy, family businesses, and
individuals. 70 percent of Americans believe this is one of the most
unfair taxes. I happen to be one of those 70 percent. I encourage may
colleagues to vote to override this veto and end this tax.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I originally voted for this bill,
but only very reluctantly. I will not vote to override the President's
veto.
I am not voting to sustain the veto because I oppose estate-tax
relief for family-owned ranches and farms or other small businesses.
In fact, I definitely think we should act to make it easier for their
owners to pass them on to future generations. This is important for the
whole country, or course, but it is particularly important for
Coloradans who want to help keep ranch lands in open, undeveloped
condition by reducing the pressure to sell them to pay estate taxes.
But there is a better way to do it than by enacting this Republican
bill.
That is why I voted for the Democratic alternative when the House
originally considered this bill.
That Democratic alternative bill would have provided real, effective
relief without the excesses of the Republican bill. It would have
raised the estate tax's special exclusion to $4 million for a couple
owning a farm or small business. So, under that alternative, a married
couple owning a family farm or ranch or a small business worth up to $4
million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever.
Also, the Democratic alternative actually would have provided more
immediate relief to small business and farm owners.
Unlike the Republican bill--which is phased in over 10 years--the
Democratic alternative would have taken effect immediately. That means
a couple passing on their farm or small business in the near future
would avoid more tax under the Democratic plan than under the
Republican bill. They would not have to hope to live long enough to see
the benefits.
In addition, by increasing the general exclusion from $675,000 to
$1.1 million next year, the Democratic alternative would have allowed
parents to pass on ``millionaire'' status to their children without a
penny of estate tax burden. And the Democratic alternative also would
have lowered estate tax rates by 20% across the board.
So, the Democratic alternative--which I voted for, which deserved
adoption, and which would not have been vetoed--would have provided
important relief from the estate tax and would have done so in a real,
effective, and prompt way.
Furthermore, the Democratic alternative would have provided this
relief in a fiscally responsible way that would not jeopardize our
ability to do what is needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security
and Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors and pay
down the public debt.
By contrast, it is precisely the fiscal overkill of the Republican
bill that made me most reluctant to vote for it and that leads me to
vote to sustain the President's veto.
As the Rocky Mountain News put it in a September 3rd editorial, ``the
Republican tax cut is a gamble that the present economic
[[Page H7332]]
boom isn't going to slow'' and is ``fiscally irresponsible.''
Once fully phased in, the Republican bill would forgo nearly $50
billion a year in revenue with no guarantee that this revenue loss will
not harm Social Security and Medicare in future years.
The bill's sponsors say it will cost $28.2 billion over 5 years and
$104.5 billion over 10 years. But that is far from the whole story.
Because of the way the bill is phased in, its true cost is cleverly
hidden and does not show up until after the 10-year budget window.
That means the full effects of the Republican bill will come just at
the time when we will have to face budget pressures because my own
``baby boom'' generation is starting to retire. And if we feel we need
to ``phase in'' H.R. 8 because we cannot afford the full repeal now,
how are we ever going to afford it 10 years from now?
We do not need to engage in this fiscal overkill.
According to the Treasury Department, under current law only 2% of
all decedents have enough wealth to be subject to the estate tax at
all.
To be more specific, the Treasury Department tells me that in 1997
estate-tax returns were filed for only 297 Coloradans.
Furthermore, according to the Treasury Department, of those estates
that are affected by the estate tax, only 3%--that is only 6 in 10,000
American estates--were comprised primarily of family-owned small
businesses, ranches, or farms.
Looking just at our state, that means that in 1997 fewer than a dozen
estate-tax returns were comprised primarily of small businesses,
ranches, or farms.
Of course, those numbers only relate to the cases in which an estate
tax was actually paid. Clearly, in many other cases families have taken
actions to forstall the estate tax. I understand that, and do think
that in appropriate cases we should lessen the pressure that prompted
some of those actions.
As I said, the Democratic alternative would have provided real,
effective, and immediate estate-tax relief to the owners of small
businesses, including farms and ranches, and would have done so in a
fiscally responsible way. That is why I voted for it.
In contrast, the biggest beneficiaries of the Republican legislation
are not these middle-class families who own small ranches or farms or
other small businesses, but instead are very wealthy families with very
large assets.
Over the past two decades, income and wealth disparities have
increased. The Republican bill would increase those wealth disparities.
I find this troubling, and it is another reason why I am not voting to
override the President's veto.
I greatly regret that on this issue the Republican leadership has
rejected bipartisanship. They have opted for confrontation with the
President instead of cooperation in crafting a bill that could be
signed into law. That is not a course I can support.
Mr. Speaker, if the President's veto is sustained--and I think it
will be--we will have another chance to take a better path. I hope that
the Republican leadership will decide to reach across the aisle and
work to develop a better bill that can be signed before this Congress
adjourns. If they do, they will find me ready to help.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I will vote today to uphold the President's
veto of the Estate Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 8).
When this legislation was first considered in the House in June, I
strongly supported and voted for the Democratic alternative which was
presented by Congressman Rangel of New York. That proposal called for a
significant reduction in the rate of taxation of estates and a 50
percent increase in the small business exclusion. The Rangel proposal
was a thoughtful and reasonable effort to deal with the legitimate
concerns of small businesses and family farms, but it did not have the
problems of the legislation which was being urged by the Republican
majority.
When the Rangel substitute was defeated by the House, I nevertheless
voted for the adoption of H.R. 8 in order to continue the legislative
process. Initial Senate action was much closer to the Rangel
substitute, and I expected a House-Senate Conference Committee to
produce a bill that I could support.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Senate simply accepted the flawed
version of the bill as adopted by the House and did not make those
changes that would improve the legislation. President Clinton was right
to veto this bill, and I will vote to sustain that veto.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the Republican leadership of
this House to work with the Democratic leadership and with the
President to craft legislation that deals with the legitimate problems
of estate taxation and that provides the relief small businesses need.
We need to deal with legitimate problems with the federal estate tax,
but this bill is clearly the wrong way to do that.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of overriding
the President's veto of H.R. 8, the death tax Elimination Act of 2000
and I urge my colleagues to lend this effort their support.
The estate tax is an outmoded policy that has long outlived its
usefulness. Alternatively known as the death tax, this tax was
instituted in 1916 to prevent too much wealth from congregating with
the wealthy capitalist families in early 20th century America.
Regrettably, the law failed in its original purpose, as the truly
wealthy are always able to shelter their income with the help of tax
attorneys that the middle-class cannot afford.
In recent years, the estate tax has been responsible for the death of
85% of American small business by the third generation. Furthermore,
countless number of farms have had to be sold in order to pay an
outrageously high estate tax, ranging as high as 55% of the farms
assessed value.
By forcing the sale of such farmland to outside buyers, often
commercial developers, the estate tax has been a major contributor to
suburban sprawl and unchecked growth in my congressional district in
southern New York.
The most indefensible point about the estate tax, however, is the
cost associated with enforcing and collecting at 65 cents out of every
dollar taken in.
Given this cost, as well as the fact that the assets taxed under the
estate tax have often already been taxed several times, it makes no
sense to continue this illogical practice. Family-owned small
businesses certainly would do better without the tax, as would family
farms that still operate from generation to generation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this veto
override.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the override of
H.R. 8. I am disappointed that Congress has been incapable of passing a
measure to provide fiscally sound estate tax relief that could be
signed into law this year.
During consideration of H.R. 8, I supported the Rangel Substitute
Amendment, legislation that would have immediately cut all estate tax
rates by 20% immediately and would have eliminated any estate tax for
more than half of the people with the smallest estates who otherwise
would have to pay some estate tax. The special exclusion that applies
to estates would be increased to $1.1 million in 2001, not 2006 as
under current law. Moreover, under this measure, 99% of family-owned
small businesses and farms would be exempted from estate tax by
increasing the special exclusion to $4 million per couple for small
businesses and family-owned farms. Thus, rather than applying to the
top 2% of all estates, only the top 1% would be subject to any tax. The
cost of this measure would be $22 billion over ten years.
Current law exempts from federal tax all estates up to $675,000 in
2000. This exemption will rise to $1,000,000 by 2006, with any federal
estate tax applying only to the current value in excess of this amount.
Estates in excess of the exemption are taxed at a marginal rate of
between 18 and 55 percent. Furthermore, current law provides for
closely-held, non-public businesses and farms to receive an exemption
of $1.3 million before being subject to any federal estate tax. For
estates owned by married couples, this exemption is $2.6 million. And,
family farms are exempt from any tax for ten years, if the heirs
continue to operate the farm. Estates passed onto a spouse are not
subject to tax.
Complete repeal of the estate tax is skewed to give only the
wealthiest 2% of families in America the largest tax cuts and would
actually give less relief to smaller estates than the Democratic
alternative for at least the first five years. Ninety-eight percent of
Americans would see no benefit from H.R. 8, while 330 estates, valued
at more than $20 million each, would see a tax benefit of approximately
$10,530,850. It is a myth that H.R. 8 will enhance protections for
small businesses and farms. Only about 3% of the total number of
family-owned businesses and farms are subject to the estate tax
according to the Treasury Department. It has been estimated that fewer
than one in 20 farms will have to pay the estate tax upon the death of
the owner. This is due, in large part to the passage in 1997 of the
Taxpayer Relief Act (P.L. 105-34) which raised the effective deduction
for qualified family-owned business interests to $1.3 million per
individual, which exempts almost all family farms and small businesses.
Moreover, the few businesses and farms that are subject to the estate
tax can make payments in installments over fourteen years at below-
market interest rates.
But, repeal of the estate tax will result in a revenue loss of $105
billion in the first ten years, rising to an annual loss of $50 billion
by 2011 and the cost in the second ten years would be at least $750
billion. Thus, over twenty years, the total cost of H.R. 8, including
extra interest, will be more than $1.0 trillion. Where does the
Majority propose to make up the difference? How do they propose to pay
for other priorities like Medicare, Social Security and improvements to
education?
[[Page H7333]]
Mr. Speaker, here we are, in the waning days of this Congress, no
closer to providing a prescription drug benefit in Medicare or a
Patients' Bill of Rights and having done nothing to further strengthen
Social Security or Medicare or eliminate the federal debt by 2012. As a
member of the Budget Committee, I continue to advocate that Congress
preserve the budget surplus and use it to pay off the national debt
while strengthening Social Security. The $3.7 trillion dollar public
debt is a tremendous burden on the economy. H.R. 8 jeopardizes our
ability to protect Social Security and Medicare and pay down the
national debt by creating a revenue loss, when executed, in excess of
half a trillion dollars over ten years.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are many areas in our tax code
warranting reform, including the estate tax, but to start here, with a
repeal of tax that only affects the top 2% of all Americans is clearly
not a correct priority. I have supported a plan to provide real relief,
faster and more fiscally prudent. But, unfortunately, the Majority is
more interested in sound bites than sound policy.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my
colleagues to override President's Clinton's nonsensical veto of H.R.
8, the ``Death Tax Elimination Act.''
Repealing the death tax would offer significant tax relief to working
families and farmers throughout our nation. In my State of California,
80% of our economy's jobs are created as a direct result of small
businesses. For these working Americans, H.R. 8 will ensure future
prosperity for their families and the individuals their business
employs.
In addition to being a financial burden, the death tax is morally
wrong. Throughout our lives, we are taxed every time we turn on the
light, flush the toilet, earn an income, and even when we die. Taxing
one's estate--property which has been subject to property taxes,
capital gains taxes, and purchased with net income--is nothing more
than double taxation. How can we, the legislators of the freest country
in the world, justify this?
Most importantly, our budget can afford this tax relief. Don't be
fooled by the rhetoric coming from the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue. Even when combined with the marriage penalty tax relief, these
two tax cuts represent only 2% of our surplus.
Losing a loved one is tough enough. Let's make the grieving process a
little bit easier by taking the IRS out of the funeral.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I will vote to override the
President's veto of H.R. 8, the Estate Tax bill not because I favor
repeal of the estate tax, but to send a message to the Democratic and
Republican leadership that both sides must work to strike a compromise
and pass a bill to reform the estate tax.
Clearly the estate tax has a deleterious effect on successful persons
who hope to pass along homes to their children. In my State of Hawaii,
property values are highly inflated and properties which would not
result in any estate tax on the mainland are subject to estate tax in
Hawaii. In 1997, the last year for which statistics are available, 2.5
percent of estates in Hawaii were subject to Federal estate taxes,
compared to only 1.9 percent nationwide.
When H.R. 8 was originally considered, I first voted for the
Democratic substitute which would have raised the exemption to $4
million, lowered the tax rate and taken effect immediately. The
Republican bill would not take full effect for ten years and it did
nothing to lower rates. That is too long for many people.
We need to raise the exemption for estates to $4 million or more,
lower the tax rate and make the changes effective immediately. There is
plenty of room for compromise between the two positions. Both sides
must compromise, the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose, HR 8, the Estate Tax
Repeal.
The Leadership has scheduled a vote to attempt to override the
president's veto of H.R. 8 in hope that they can take the backdoor
route to enact the first installment of their $2 trillion dollars of
tax cuts that favor the wealthy over the working families. If this
complete repeal of the estate taxes is adopted, it would provide $200
billion of tax relief to the wealthiest 400 individuals in this
country. Not only is this not fair it will make it harder to meet our
existing obligations such as paying off the 5-7 trillion dollar
national debt, saving Social Security, investing in education and
modernizing Medicare to provide a prescription drug benefit.
If the leadership were serious about providing estate tax relief to
small businesses and family farms, they would have worked for a truly
bipartisan estate tax that all members of Congress would have supported
and the president would have signed into law. There will be no estate
tax relief, however, if the leadership is not willing to compromise.
With only 19 days remaining in this legislative session, why are we
wasting our time debating a bill that benefits the few and prevents us
from taking meaningful action on prescription drugs, a Patient's bill
of Rights, school construction, and a modest increase in the minimum
wage?
I believe we should provide relief to family farms and small
businesses and that is why I supported the Rangel alternative that was
offered during debate in July. This alternative would have provided
fiscally responsible estate tax relief to all small business and family
farms starting Jan. 1, 2001. Specifically, it would have immediately
raised the special exclusion from the estate tax from $675,000 to $4
million for a couple owning a farm or small business and would have
lowered the estate tax rates by 20% across the board.
Unfortunately, congressional leaders opposed this alternative and now
continue to waste our time and the taxpayers money debating an estate
tax bill that is doomed to fail, only to be used for political purposes
during an election year.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we can still reach a compromise on tax relief.
But we need sensible tax cuts that stay within a budget and go to
working families. As Secretary Summers stated, ``in this new era of
surpluses, Congress faces profound economic choices that will affect
all Americans. There is a strong case for targeted relief, but to put
repeal ahead of increasing the minimum wage, putting in place a
Patients' bill of Rights, giving tax relief for middle-income families,
and strengthening Medicare and Social Security would be to sacrifice
the economic interests of most Americans.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 8. Any tax cut
must be done in a fiscally responsible manner, and not derail the
opportunity we have to reduce our large national debt, and prepare for
our future obligations to our aging population.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express disappointment
over Mr. Clinton's veto of the bipartisan bill to eliminate the death
tax and vowed to work to override the veto once the bill is returned to
the House for consideration. Death tax repeal legislation was passed in
the House with a strong bipartisan vote (279-136) in June.
This bill would help working Americans who have built up family owned
small businesses or family farms. I am pleased with the broad support
this repeal legislation received across the political spectrum and I
hope this will help us override this ill-advised veto.
The death tax unfairly forces many working families to sell the
family businesses or a family farm just to pay the exorbitant taxes.
This is a confiscatory tax that takes half of what someone has spent a
lifetime building. When this bill becomes law, it will disinvite the
Internal Revenue Service to the funeral.
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore have injected class warfare into this
debate. But they must come to realize that this tax is burdensome to
all small business owners, including many first generation minority-
owned and women-owned businesses. Small business owners have spent
years building up family businesses in the hopes of passing them down
to their children. The death tax kills these dreams. It forces these
families to completely start over.
Repealing this tax will also help preserve open spaces. As cities
encroach on agricultural lands, the estate tax forces most of these
families to sell the farm to developers in order to pay the death
taxes. Passing the death tax repeal will help us preserve these open
spaces.
According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses
(NFIB), more than 70 percent of small businesses do not survive the
second generation and 87 percent do not make it to the third
generation. Sixty percent of small-business owners report that they
would create new jobs over the coming year if estate taxes were
eliminated.
Repealing this unfair tax would help preserve small businesses,
farms, and open spaces. It would keep family businesses together. It
would keep family farms in families. It would create new jobs. Let's
pass this repeal.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the death tax really amounts to a
double or triple tax. People have already paid a tax on the income they
have earned and then they have paid a tax on any gains they have made
from investments or interest they have earned from savings and then the
death tax hits them again.
It's the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people.
Opponents say repeal of the death tax is not necessary because it
affects relatively few estates and there is an exemption for the first
$675,000 of an estate. What they will not tell you is that any business
with five or ten employees is usually worth more than that amount. And
any farm or ranch that is relied upon by an individual as their sole
source of income is going to be worth more than that amount, too.
Hard working Americans deserve to be able to leave on the results of
their lifetime labor to their children or others. Small businesses and
[[Page H7334]]
farms and ranches should not have to be sold simply because the owner
passes away.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really one of
priorities and fiscal discipline, not the estate tax. There is no
question that the inheritance tax is badly in need or reform. Since I
came to Congress, I have supported increasing the exemption,
adjustments for inflation, modification of rates, and protections for
closely-held and family businesses. That approach would gain the
support of the vast majority of my colleagues, and would also offer
more immediate and more reliable relief than a phased-in repeal that
could be halted at the first sign of economic trouble.
By contrast, the bill the President vetoed contained much less than
met the eye--and much less than those who own businesses, woodlots and
farms deserve. Far from offering predictability, certainly and
immediate relief, this proposal promised only a roll of the dice,
continuing current inequities over a ten-year period and inviting
future freezes and reversals.
More fundamentally, since I have been in Congress, I have been
dismayed by our eagerness to act on the problems of those who need help
the least, while ignoring those who need help the most. We have put the
needs of children, senior citizens and working families of modest means
on hold. For example, congress has proposed repealing the ``death tax''
that affects a few hundred of America's wealthiest people, but has done
nothing to address the ``life tax'' that affects the poorest of the 1.6
million people--22 percent of America's elderly--in nursing homes. They
cannot receive assistance with their nursing home costs, which run
$46,000 on average, unless they ``spend down'' their non-housing assets
to less than $2,000. This policy imposes financial hardship on the most
vulnerable before they die--300,000 people in 1998 alone--and in some
cases exacts on extraordinary cruel emotional toll, as when long-
married couples are counseled to seek divorce.
Congress has done nothing to help the 1/3 of our poorest senior
citizens who have not prescription drug coverage and pay the highest
drug prices in the world. Nor has Congress addressed the health
insurance needs of 11 million uninsured children. A study by the Oregon
Center for Public Policy found that, despite an extraordinarily strong
economy, working Oregonians were basically no better off than they had
been ten or 20 years ago. One in seven working families with children
is poor, and one in nine faces hunger at some point during the year.
This is part of a huge tax reduction that makes it harder to meet our
long-term priorities while ignoring the needs of most American
families. I do not believe that anyone should ever have to sell a
family business because a principal has died. Nor do I believe that
elderly Americans should have to divorce their spouses in order to
afford a nursing home, or that parents should have to choose between
providing food or health care for their children. If Congress acts
responsibly, we can solve these problems. The President is correct in
resisting a series of tax cuts that favor those who need help the least
until there is equal attention to the plight of those who need our help
the most.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, the Estate tax is one of the most
egregious examples of bad tax policy in Washington. It's unfair,
unseemly and economically unsound. Under the guise of making the rich
pay their fair share, the death tax has a negative impact on the
economy and hurts ordinary Americans. Ironically, those most affected
by the death tax are not the wealthy, who have resources to shelter
their assets as well as incentive to simply spend their wealth while
they are alive but family owned businesses.
The death tax is one of the major reasons businesses don't survive
because owners are forced to sell their businesses in order to pay the
tax. Less than half of all family owned businesses survive the death of
a founder and only 5% survive to the third generation.
The death tax forces businesses to divert money from productive uses
such as capital investment and job creation to estate planning. Sixty
percent of small businesses owners report they would create new jobs
over their coming year if estate taxes were eliminated.
With the nation's savings rate at a record low, we should be
encouraging savings, not punishing it. Americans should not be taxed
for working hard to pass their wealth on to their children so that they
may have a better life. This legislation will help the American people
and the American economy. I urge the President to reconsider and sign
this bill into law.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to oppose the veto
override of H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Elimination Act of 2000. This Member
does not support the complete repeal of the Federal inheritance tax for
the wealthiest Americans--billionaires and mega-millionaires.
On June 9, 2000, this Member voted for H.R. 8 based on his desire to
move the inheritance tax reform process forward by dramatically
increasing the Federal inheritance tax exemption level. In this
Member's statement in the Congressional Record on June 9, 2000, he
indicated that if a conference report did not change from the House-
passed bill, this Member would vote no. But, of course, the Senate
passed the House bill, and there was no conference report. Accordingly,
this Member has given his word in writing that he would not vote for
such a bill to become law. This Member cannot break his promise to his
constituents.
If the Presidential veto is sustained, it is this Member's hope that
meaningful legislation could be passed this year which would increase
dramatically the exemption level to the Federal inheritance tax and
would also provide a reduction in Federal inheritance tax rates for all
those who pay this tax whether they are subject to the highest
inheritance tax rate (55%) or the lowest inheritance tax rate (18%).
This Member is a long-term advocate of inheritance tax reduction,
especially in regard to protecting small businesses and family farms
and ranches. This Member believes that inheritance taxes unfortunately
do adversely and inappropriately affect Nebraskan small business and
family farms and ranches when they attempt to pass this estate from one
generation to the next.
Accordingly, to demonstrate this Member's very real support for
inheritance tax reform, this Member supported the Taxpayer Relief Act
if 1997 which passed on July 31, 1997. This Act phased-in an increase
in the unified credit exemption from the current level of $675,000 to
$1.0 million in 2006. Also, it provided an immediate exclusion of $1.3
million (not in addition to the broader exclusion) for a limited
variety of eligible closely-held family farms and businesses.
At the current time, this Member does not support the complete
elimination of inheritance taxes. It would be a great political error
and controversy to eliminate the inheritance tax on people like Steve
Forbes or other billionaires or mega-millionaires. Also, it would
discourage some of the largest of the charitable contributions and the
establishment of charitable foundations. The benefits of these
foundations to American society are invaluable. Our universities and
colleges, too, would see a very marked reduction in the gifts they
receive if the inheritance tax on the wealthiest Americans was totally
eliminated. Despite the legal talents the super-rich can afford, such
an inheritance tax change would have major consequence. The total
elimination of the inheritance tax is a bad idea.
This Member's past vote for this legislation was a demonstration of
his desire to move the inheritance tax reform process forward by
increasing dramatically the exemption level to the Federal inheritance
tax. There is overwhelming support among his constituents for this kind
of reform.
It is important to remind constituents that Congress did pass into
law the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, with this Member's support. This
Act phased-in an increase in the unified credit exemption from the
current 2000 level of $675,000 to $1.0 million in 2006. Also, it
provided an immediate exclusion of $1.3 million (not in addition to the
broader exclusion) for a limited variety of eligible closely-held
family farms and businesses.
Specifically, this Member does not support repealing the inheritance
tax, with the final step completed in this legislation to zero percent
inheritance tax from the year 2009 to the year 2010 as proposed.
Instead, this Member prefers the Ewing approach which he
enthusiastically supports. This Member is an original cosponsor of H.R.
4112 which was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Ewing) on March 29, 2000. This measure (H.R. 4112) would
immediately increase the Federal inheritance tax exemption from a rate
of $675,000 to $5 million and would then increase this exemption
annually over the next three years until it reaches a total of $10
million in 2003. After reaching the $10 million level in 2003, the
exemption would be indexed annually thereafter to account for
inflation. Essential inheritance tax relief is provided by H.R. 4112
for even wealthy business and farm families. This Member is even
willing to raise the exemption level beyond $10 million to, for
example, $15 million.
By the way, most Nebraskans pay more state inheritance taxes than
Federal inheritance or estate taxes so Nebraskans should also consider
pushing for reductions or reforms in their state taxes.
Again, Mr. Speaker, for the aforementioned reasons, this Member rises
today to oppose the veto override of H.R. 8, the Estate Tax Elimination
Act of 2000.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social
Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase
on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step
toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the
tax on Social Security benefits.
Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been
one of my goals in
[[Page H7335]]
Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase
in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would
remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in
1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who
first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the
deficit is gone. So, by the President's own reasoning, there is no need
to keep this tax hike in place.
Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars,
taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of ``double taxation.''
Furthermore, ``taxing'' benefits paid by the government is merely an
accounting trick, a ``shell game'' which allows members of Congress to
reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using
the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government
programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our
action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long
way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on
senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at
repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on
Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this
goal, H.R. 761.
Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R.
219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is
spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for
the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that
the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral
obligation to keep that promise.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior
citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security
Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues to join
me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and
ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used
solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government
programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
There was no objection
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on
reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding?
Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the yeas and
nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 274,
nays 157, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 458]
YEAS--274
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--157
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--4
Greenwood
Jefferson
Vento
Young (AK)
{time} 1602
Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So, two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the veto of the
President was sustained and the bill was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The message and the bill is
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.
____________________