[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.

                          ____________________