[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 4, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1416-H1424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT OF
2001
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 8 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 111
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and
gift taxes over a 10-year period, and for other purposes. The
bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel of New
York or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 111 is a modified closed
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 8, a bill to phase out the
estate tax over 10 years.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on
Ways and Means. Additionally, the rule waives all point of order
against consideration of the bill.
The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
The rule also provides consideration of the amendment in the nature
of a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying
the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be
separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled between
a proponent and an opponent.
Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I speak in strong support of this rule and its
underlying bill, H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001.
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is not a new one; the 106th
session of Congress voted three times in a bipartisan fashion to
eliminate the death tax. In fact, this Congress fell only a handful of
votes shy of overturning the Presidential veto.
Once again, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax once and
for all. And this time I believe we can do it free from the threat of a
Presidential veto.
This tax was initially imposed to prevent the very wealthy from
passing on their wealth from one generation to the next. At the time,
this well-intentioned tax eased concerns about the growing
concentration of money and power among a small number of wealthy
families. Later, it was used to fund national emergencies, and it
became necessary to maintain these tax rates at high war-time levels
during the 1930s and 1940s. But they remained relatively unchanged
until the Tax Reform Act of 1976.
Ironically, the death tax today serves little of the purpose for
which it was intended. Rather than prevent the concentrated
accumulation of vast wealth, the death tax punishes savings, thrift and
hard work among American families.
Small businesses and farmers are penalized for their blood and sweat
and tears, paying taxes on already-taxed assets. Instead of investing
money on productive measures such as business expansion or new
equipment, businesses and farms are forced to divert their earnings to
tax accountants and lawyers just to prepare their estates.
{time} 1045
As has been pointed out by the American Farm Bureau, families own 99
percent of our Nation's farms and ranches, and those farmers and
ranchers pay taxes at a rate much higher than the population at large.
Not long ago, over 100 of some of the richest people in the world,
including Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett, Paul Newman, and members of
the Rockefeller family, took out a full page ad in The New York Times
urging Congress not to eliminate the death tax. It is not, however,
these few megamillionaires who most suffer from the punitive effects of
the death tax. Had they spent their lives milking herds or plowing
fields, they might understand why the Farm Bureau has made elimination
of the death tax its number one legislative priority.
The victims of the death tax are typically hard-working Americans
with medium-sized estates; farmers and small business owners. Their
enterprises create jobs, growth, and opportunity in our hometown
communities, but every year thousands of heirs are literally forced to
sell the family farm or business just to pay off their death taxes.
As Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman said during testimony before
the Committee on Ways and Means, and I quote, ``Farm operations are
capital-intensive businesses whose assets are not easily converted into
cash. In order to generate the funds that are needed to pay hefty death
taxes, heirs often have to sell parts of their businesses. When parts
are sold, the economic viability of the business is destroyed.''
Indeed, with penalties reaching as high as 55 percent, these farmers
and ranchers are often forced to sell off land, buildings or equipment
otherwise needed to operate those businesses. The death tax is turning
the American Dream into the ``Nightmare On Elm Street.''
Equally disturbing is the fact that the death tax actually raises
relatively little revenue for the Federal Government. Some studies have
found that it may cost the government and taxpayers more in
administrative and compliance fees than it raises in revenues.
Of course, farmers and ranchers are not the only ones facing an
unfair and unnecessary burden from the death tax. Not long ago, the
Public Policy Institute of New York State conducted a survey on the
impact of the Federal estate tax on upstate New York. The findings were
alarming. The study found that in a 5-year period, family-owned and
operated businesses on the average spent $125,000 per company on tax
planning alone. These are costs incurred prior to any actual payment of
the Federal estate taxes. They reported that an estimated 14 jobs per
business have already been lost as a result of the Federal estate tax
planning. For just the 365 businesses surveyed, the total number of
jobs already lost to the Federal estate tax is over 5,100, and that is
just in upstate New York.
According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses,
nearly 60 percent of business owners say they would add more jobs over
the coming years if death taxes were eliminated, more jobs and greater
opportunities for our citizens.
As William Beach, director for the Center for Data Analysis at the
Heritage Foundation, recently wrote, the death tax cuts across all
racial and community lines. ``Take the Chicago Defender newspaper, an
important
[[Page H1417]]
voice for the black community for nearly a century,'' Beach wrote.
``When Defender owner John Sengstacke died recently, his granddaughter
was forced to seek outside investors and even considered selling the
paper to pay off the death taxes, which totaled $4 million.
``More blacks can expect the same experience,'' he continued.
``Income levels in black households have tripled over the last 24
years, and the number of black-owned businesses more than doubled from
1987 to 1997. According to a recent survey, the death tax is the most
feared Federal tax'' among these business owners.
My rural and suburban district in New York is laden with small
businesses and farms. They are owned by hard-working families who pay
their taxes, create jobs, and contribute not only to the quality of
life of their community, but to this Nation's rich heritage. Is it so
much to ask that they be able to pass on their industry and hard work,
their small business or their farm to their children? Must Uncle Sam
continue to play the Grim Reaper?
The fact is they paid their taxes in life on every acre sewn, on
every product sold, and every dollar earned. They should not be taxed
in death, too.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); and the
ranking member and my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), for their hard work on this measure. I would also like to
extend my gratitude to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) for their tireless efforts to
once again bring this important measure to the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bury this unfair tax once and
for all by approving both the rule and its underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Reynolds), for yielding me the time, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to listen to my Republican colleagues singing the
praises of this bill, one would think it was going to change the lives
of millions of Americans the minute the ink was dry. But before anybody
starts spending the inheritance, they should read the fine print, Mr.
Speaker. This bill is full of it.
For starters, this bill does not actually repeal the estate tax until
the year 2011. To listen to the other side, Mr. Speaker, one would
think that repeal was waiting just around the corner; that it was
something everyone could plan on. The fact is my Republican colleagues
wait another 10 years, just beyond the reach of any budget enforcement,
to repeal this estate tax.
Do my colleagues know what 10 years means, Mr. Speaker? It means five
new Congresses, and it means at least one, and possibly two, new
Presidents. If this bill were signed into law today, all those new
political forces would have to agree to stay the course for the estate
tax to actually be repealed. I, for one, would not bet the family farm
on the many politicians keeping someone else's promise to reduce taxes.
Mr. Speaker, it is not as if this Republican bill would even help
most Americans. This bill will not even help the richest of Americans.
Under existing laws, fully phased in, the first $1 million of an estate
is completely excluded from taxation. For a couple who does the bare
minimum estate planning, the first $2 million are completely tax free.
Or to put it another way, only the richest 2 percent of all Americans
pay any estate tax now. In fact, one-half of all of the estate tax
revenue collected in 1998 was paid by only 3,000 families. Most
ordinary, hard-working families have absolutely no stake in this bill.
However, the President's Cabinet has a stake in it. President Bush
and his Cabinet stand to gain $5 million to $19 million each if this
repeal happens. The 50 wealthiest Members of Congress stand to gain,
together, about $1 billion if this repeal happens. But for the other 98
percent of us, this bill would provide not 1 cent of tax relief.
Nothing. Not one penny.
Mr. Speaker, not all millionaires are treated alike under this bill.
Leave it to my Republican colleagues to make distinctions among
millionaires and to make sure that the wealthiest go to the head of the
relief line. This Republican bill would immediately repeal the 10
percent surtax that applies only to estates valued above $10 million.
The Committee on Way and Means Republicans added that provision for the
richest of the rich in place of a provision in the introduced bill. The
provision they struck would have immediately increased the amounts
excluded from the estate tax. That provision would have helped the
merely moderately wealthy, family farms, and small businesses.
But Republicans would only let tax relief trickle down to the less
wealthy millionaires after a few more years. Your ordinary millionaire,
whose estate is worth $3 million, will not see any relief under the
Republican bill until 2004, and then these rates would be reduced to 1
or 2 percentage points until the year 2011.
The problem is that my Republican friends believe in budgetary magic.
Last week House Republicans passed their ``three-card monte'' budget.
Just when it looks like you can tell how huge their tax cuts are, they
throw a little hocus-pocus at you, and they give the Committee on the
Budget chairman authority to increase, but not to reduce, the size of
any tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, do you know why? Because House Republicans believe that
$1.6 trillion is just the starting point. They believe that $1.6
trillion may cover President Bush's proposals, but they have a few
proposals of their own to throw into the mix. How will they pay for
their trillions of dollars in tax relief for the rich? In the budget
they propose deep cuts in low-income heating assistance. They slash the
growth in education funding; they decimate prescription drug benefits;
endanger Medicare, Social Security, defense and agriculture. But then
Mr. Speaker, abracadabra, in July, the Committee on the Budget chairman
can change all of those spending numbers.
The only thing that they do not say is how all of this would add up.
Unfortunately, that is what a budget is supposed to do. This budget
illusion is just a variation of an old trick: Make big problems
disappear by ignoring them. Republicans believe that they can make the
huge cost of repeal disappear if they hold off until the end of the 10-
year budget horizon. This is just hoping the big bully will disappear
if you do not look at him until the end of recess. Ignoring problems do
not work in the playground, and they will not work in the world of
public finance. When fully phased in, repealing the estate tax will
directly cost Americans $50 billion each year. It will cost States
about $6 billion each year, and all of that revenue will be made up in
fees and taxes, or cuts in services.
Who will pay it? Mr. Speaker, the other 98 percent of Americans.
Repeal will simply shift the burden from the shoulders of the very
richest Americans to everyone else's shoulders.
Estate tax repeal encourages inequality. It promotes huge disparity
in wealth over many generations. Repeal of the estate tax will remove
one of the last remnants of progressivity in the Tax Code. The
wealthiest Americans report relatively little of their income during
their lifetime because most of it is in the form of accrued but
unrealized capital gains, or other tax-preferred investments. The
estate tax liability for the wealthiest of Americans is, on average,
seven times their income tax liability. By removing the estate tax, we
will further increase the inequality of treatment between income
derived from capital and income derived from a good day's work.
Mr. Speaker, if we repeal the estate tax, we will be left raising all
of the government's revenue with only payroll taxes, taxes on wages,
taxes on salaries, taxes on cigarettes, liquor and gasoline, and that
is just not fair.
Too many family farms and small businesses still pay the estate tax,
but that is a small part of the picture. Family farms and small
businesses actually represent only 3 percent of the 2 percent, or
0.0006 percent, of all estates subject to the estate tax. The
Republican bill switches from step-up basis under the current law, and
retained in the Democratic substitute, to carry-over basis.
Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous price the inheritors will have to
pay down the line. Mr. Speaker, they do
[[Page H1418]]
not need the promise of a repeal in 10 years, they need immediate
relief through expanded exemptions and adjustments for inflation as
provided in the Democratic substitute. The Democratic substitute would
immediately, and I use the word ``immediately,'' exempt 99.4 percent of
all family farms and all small businesses.
The President is fond of saying that he trusts the people. Mr.
Speaker, when the people learn that this bill will help only the
wealthiest few, when the people learn about the delay and budget
gimmickry, I doubt if that trust will be reciprocated. The Republican
tax policy is too high-ended to help ordinary, hard-working American
families, and it is too back-loaded to be of any help to our sputtering
economy today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Republican bill and
pass the Democratic substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I request a point of inquiry. I have a
question I need to direct to the Chair and to the ranking member and
chairman. It may require them to yield to me 30 seconds each so they
can respond.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman will state his
point of inquiry.
Mr. CALLAHAN. My point of inquiry is where can I offer an amendment
and where would it be appropriate and would each side support it? As
you may know, Mr. Speaker, Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates,
Sr. have all come out against this package. I think that we ought to
facilitate them to whatever extent that we can.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not appear to be making a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I would respectfully ask that each side yield me 30
seconds so they can respond.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may seek time from either
side.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. CALLAHAN. My question is, to facilitate these multibillionaires
who are against this bill, Mr. Speaker, I want an opportunity to offer
an amendment which limits the reductions in this tax to the first
billion dollars. I think that this will satisfy them, because they will
be able to pay taxes on anything over a billion dollars. Therefore,
those that need relief, the poor Americans, would have the opportunity
for some relief. It is an honest request. I would respectfully ask the
chairman and the ranking member if they would support such an
amendment, if they can answer that and the appropriate time, Mr.
Speaker, as to when I can introduce it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was just going to answer my dear friend from Alabama. If the
Democratic substitute fails, I would gladly back his proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule
and the bill to repeal the death tax.
Mr. Speaker, the American dream is about the opportunity of every
American to build a better future for themselves and their children
through hard work and personal initiative. It could mean building your
own business, pouring your own sweat into a small farm just to turn out
a profit and saving each day so that you can leave something to your
family. Yet it is these Americans who are working hard, playing by the
rules and paying taxes all the while who upon their death become
victims of an onerous and unfair tax that discounts their dedication,
punishes their entrepreneurship, and denies their dying wishes.
Think of the young man who 50 years ago was the first in his family
to go to college. He worked hard, he pulled himself up, and he made a
better life. Should he not be able to provide a better life for his
family, for his children as a result of his lifetime of work and
savings? Rewarding hard work and initiative is part of the promise of
our Nation. But, no. Instead, the government taxes this initiative,
this promise, not once but twice.
Think of the small businesswoman or family farmer. Their money is
used to run their businesses, pay their hard-working employees and
invest in needed equipment, all the while paying their taxes. To pay
the death tax, families must sell off assets, lay off these workers and
even sometimes close their doors completely. This is not right. There
is no logic or fairness in this tax. Small, family-owned businesses,
farms and ranches are integrally connected to our communities and
represent the American values that are at the core of our country. Yet
many small businesses and family farms and ranches are not passed on
and continued after the first generation because of the death tax.
Let us not talk about carve-outs or exceptions that help only some
but not all families. It is time to completely eliminate the death tax
and reinvest in America so that business owners, farmers and all
dedicated individuals can pass on their dreams and ensure that their
values live on.
Mr. Speaker, last year I was joined by every single one of my
Republican colleagues and 65 of my friends from across the aisle in
voting to eliminate the death tax. We again have a chance to do the
right thing and end this tax on the American dream.
Let us bury the death tax.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
There are just a couple of points that I want to make. I want to make
it clear to the people at home that the Democratic proposal almost
immediately exempts $4 million and below of estates. Now, I know that
to some people in this Chamber that does not mean a lot, but it means a
lot in my district. I know a handful of people, and I come from a
pretty wealthy district, that have estates worth more than $4 million.
As a fact, there are only approximately 6,300 estates in the entire
United States of America on average in a year that are above the $4
million mark. That is all. Six thousand three hundred estates. If the
Democratic proposal is adopted, all but the richest 6,300 people will
be exempt from taxation. Period. That is really the bottom line in this
debate.
On the Republican proposal, it is just the opposite. We go from the
bottom up and they come from the top down. Now, it is funny over the
last several years even I from one of the most Democratic districts in
the country get questioned, ``What's the difference between Democrats
and Republicans?'' This is it. This is it. When it comes to who is
going to get the tax relief, we go from the bottom up. They come from
the top down. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. It is just a
significant different philosophy, one that I am proud to share.
There are a couple of other questions. There were some points made
about the administrative costs of the estate tax. Agreed. If you cut
out 85 percent of the people subject to taxation, which is what the
Democratic bill does, you cut out the cost of administration. You are
now only administering 15 percent of the tax bills. The other point I
guess I want to make and I do not think it has been made yet this
morning but we will hear it all day long about the rates of taxes paid.
The actual tax paid on the richest estate, not the rate, not this, not
that, after all the loopholes, after all the deductions, after all the
exemptions, the actual tax paid is roughly 20 percent.
In the example we heard earlier about a potential $4 million tax
bill, guess what? Unless that person had no estate plan which of course
if they didn't, their family should sue them. Unless that person had no
estate plan, that means that person's estate was probably worth on
average $20 million. You do not have a $4 million tax bill unless your
estate is worth $20 million which means that person walked away,
without doing anything, just by the luck of genetics, with $16 million.
[[Page H1419]]
Guess what? I think they will be able to survive on $16 million. My
district is very expensive, but I think I could do okay on $16 million
for the rest of my life, my kids' lives, their kids' lives, and their
kids' lives.
This whole concept of coming from the top down is about as anti-
American, I guess that is the only way I can think of it, as I can
think. I thought America was built from the bottom up. That is all I
ever hear about around here. Nobody ever comes and says, ``Let's help
the rich guys.'' They say, ``Let's help the average American.'' The
average American does not have an estate worth over $4 million in
today's world.
That is why the Democratic proposal is better, that is why it should
be adopted, and that is why we should vote yes when the time comes.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in support of the rule and of the bill. It is time to
eliminate this tax.
I heard my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), earlier today say that 2 percent of the estates in the
country are taxed. I think that is an accurate figure. I think we will
hear that a lot today. But it is not the 2 percent that most Americans
would immediately think it is. It is not the 2 percent that are the
wealthiest families in America. In fact, half of all the estates that
are taxed, I guess that would be 1 percent of all estates, half of all
the estates that are taxed have values of under $1 million.
Now, we all know there is an exemption for up to $675,000. I do not
know what that tells my colleagues. What it tells me is that half of
the people who pay this tax are people who never expected to pay it.
Half of the people who pay this tax are people who would be shocked if
they were still alive as their families are shocked to find out that
their small business, their family farm, is worth more than $675,000.
When that happens, 55 cents out of every dollar goes to the Federal
Government. If your estate is worth $100,000 over $675,000, $55,000 of
that goes to the Federal Government. That is just wrong.
We just heard, I think, an accurate example, that the average estate
pays a 20 percent tax. That is because many estates do not pay any tax
at all and many other estates are barely over the exempted amount. If
you took that $900,000 estate and figured out they were losing 55 cents
on every dollar worth over $675,000, you would get a relatively low
rate but you are taking their business and their livelihood.
I do a farm tour every year in my district. Last year we stopped at a
farm supply store because we talk to people who own farming businesses.
We talk to people in agricultural businesses. I asked the people who
ran the farm supply store first of all about the efforts they have made
over the years to pass that business on to both of their sons who work
in the business with them every day. He is not going to pay an estate
tax, but he spent a lot of money to figure out how not to do it with
all kinds of insurance and trusts and things like that. He said we have
met lots of farmers who never have a problem financially paying their
bill until somebody dies and when somebody dies, they have a big
problem because they cannot figure out how to keep that asset together
and pay that 55 cents on the dollar for everything that is suddenly
worth a lot more than they thought it was going to be.
People do not deserve to have everything they paid taxes on all their
life taxed when they die. We need to pass this rule. We need to pass
this bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 8, the third installment of President
Bush's fiscally questionable tax package. For nearly a month, this body
has discussed and voted on bills that provide tax relief to people
least in need while ignoring our Nation's serious needs for education,
health care, and the environment and, most important, the fiscal
prudence, paying down the debt and meeting our existing
responsibilities.
Virtually every Member of Congress agrees that the current estate tax
needs to be reformed. I have supported increases in exemptions,
adjustment for inflation, reduction in rate and protections for closely
held family farms and small businesses which are only 9 percent of the
total inheritance tax program. I fundamentally believe that reforming
the estate tax will allow for more farmland, wood lots and green spaces
to be preserved and small business to be protected. Estate tax reform
is an essential part of making our communities more livable.
That being said, it is frustrating that despite near unanimity on
this issue, my Republican colleagues insist on legislation that
provides vast benefits for people who need it the least while stalling
on relief for people who need help now, not 10 or 11 years from now but
now. The legislation we are debating today costs $662 billion. That is
why the repeal does not take place until 2011.
This is an accounting gimmick that puts the full cost of the bill
outside the budgeting window, preventing the Joint Committee on
Taxation from scoring the true cost of the bill. Despite the
overwhelming cost, this bill does not substantially benefit the small
business or the family farm for more than a decade. The Democratic
alternative provides far more help for those who need it most in the
next 10 years and does so now.
Since coming to Washington over 4 years ago, I have worked to make
our world a more livable place, improve bipartisan cooperation and
maintain our hard-earned fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, H.R. 8
manages to violate all three of those principles. It should be rejected
and meaningful reform enacted.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
I want to congratulate him on the great job that he is doing managing
this very important rule, this very important component in the tax
package which I know has been authored by our friend the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and others who understand fully that we are
all in this together.
I have listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle engage
in that classic class warfare argument, us versus them. ``This is from
the top down, not from the bottom up. That is the difference between
the Republicans and the Democrats.''
{time} 1115
The real difference is, the Republicans believe that if we are going
to bring about fairness, we should be fair to everyone. Now, I know
that some have quipped that Warren Buffett and Ted Turner and Bill
Gates, Sr., are not proponents of this. The fact is, whether they are
proponents of this or not has nothing to do with it because there may
be a few other people who have been successful in this economy of ours
who believe that they should have some fairness.
So we are going to provide Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Ted
Turner relief whether they want it or not, and it is the right thing to
do. But it is also very important for us to note, it is very important
for us to note that if we look at the impact that this death tax has
had on so many small businesses and family farms in this country, it is
the right thing to do for people regardless of where they are on the
economic spectrum.
African Americans in this country are the group that is hit hardest
by the death tax. Seventy-five percent of businesses, small businesses
in this country, fail following the death of the owner. So let us make
sure that we understand the difference that exists.
The Republicans want very much to make sure that we provide fairness
for every single American. We are not going to pick who is a winner and
who is a loser. We want to create an opportunity for everyone to
succeed; and that is why we should support this rule, defeat the
Democratic substitute, which the rule has made in order, because it
again engages in the old class warfare argument, and then pass this
very important component, which is pro-growth and will help the working
men and women of this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
[[Page H1420]]
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take a minute or two to offer a
truce to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) on this class
warfare and would agree that we could find some meeting of the mind if
we could get into the Republican rhetoric some talk about preserving
the Social Security system, talking about the Medicare system, talking
about prescription drugs, talking about improving education.
We have here a bill offered by the majority that talks about
repealing the estate tax 10 years from today. When I asked the Joint
Taxation Committee how much would it cost if we took last year's bill
and put it into effect immediately, they said $662 billion. So I said
there is no way in the world for the Republican leadership to maintain
the ceiling of $1.6 trillion that the President has put on the bill. If
they have already spent $953 billion for the marginal rate changes,
another $400 billion for child credits and for removing the marriage
penalty, there is $200 billion left. How are they going to get this
$662 billion foot into this $200 billion shoe? And they did it; they
really did it. They did it by saying if one wants to protect their
estate, do not die for 10 years.
What we are saying is that the Republican bill might make some sense
if that was the only thing we had before us, but we have an alternative
that everybody that can read the bill would know that it makes more
sense to get instant relief from the Democratic bill for more people
and right away.
It excludes $4 million estates starting with 2002 and that moves up
to $5 million estates at the end of 10 years. The Republican plan would
cost us $60 billion a year.
It is not class warfare to say how is that money going to be made up;
how do we know that the surplus is going to be there; how are we going
to protect the entitlement programs that one may not like but they are
on the books. We have to protect those people who are going to become
eligible in 10 years.
In 10 years, the $1.6 billion tax cut goes into effect. The $60
billion that we lose a year on the estate repeal goes into effect.
Eighty million people will be eligible for Social Security and
Medicare, and this is the time that we expect to get a $5.6 trillion
surplus because the CBO says that might happen. They say that 90
percent of the time it might not happen.
So let us not say that this is class warfare. I do not have that many
people running around my district with $5 million estates; but wherever
they are, I would want them protected. I would not want farms lost and
small businesses lost because we are taxing the estate. That is why we
exclude them instead of opening some of these farms to even more of a
tax exposure when we find that the appreciation in some of the property
under the Republican plan is taken into consideration with the taxes
that they are going to have, and that is the taxes they are going to
have and will continue to have until 10 years passes.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting this: forget the class warfare and
see what makes common sense in terms of 99.04 percent of the United
States. Only 2 percent have any liability at all, and we take care of
75 percent of those people, and I ask them to consider the Democrat
alternative.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn), the sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very good that the Democrats want to be
bipartisan on this, and I expect in our final legislation we will see
that. My great friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), has talked about the death tax and why he believes a repeal is
not the way to go.
Let me just respond that I think it is very important to be very
truthful on what we are dealing with. In the bill that the ranking
member discussed, he said that repealing the death tax today would cost
$660 billion. That is accurate, but that is not the bill we are talking
about. The bill we are talking about today is H.R. 8. The reason we
phased it in is because we want to make it easier to accept the loss in
revenue over a period of 10 years.
Obviously, at $200 billion over 10 years we are not repealing the tax
as rapidly as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has suggested. I
mean, if we were and we were doing it today, it would be a lot more
expensive because each year some of that revenue is lost that is coming
in. That is not the bill we are talking about.
The bill we are talking about today is a phase-out of the death tax
over 10 years. It will eventually repeal the death tax. Repeal is where
we want to go because we all know that if we leave any portion of this
tax intact and we are not on the train toward repeal, this tax will
grow back. This tax began in 1916, the fourth time in our Nation's
history.
At that time, if one were calculating in today's dollars, the
exemption amount that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is
putting at $2 million in his bill, his substitute today, the exemption
in 1916 is worth $9 million in today's dollars. So I think his bill is
a very lethargic way to go at eliminating this burden, and certainly
his description of his other bill does not reflect what we are
considering today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for estate tax relief.
The estate tax should be modified to protect family-owned small
businesses and family farms from the threat of having to be sold just
to pay the tax. It should also be updated to reflect the economic
growth many Americans experienced in recent years, but any reform of
the estate tax should be fair and fiscally responsible, taking into
consideration the impending baby boom generation early next decade and
their retirement and not based on highly speculative budget surpluses
11 years from now.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8, however, is a weather forecast. I do not
believe, it is a fair or fiscally responsible way to go. It is asking
the American people to plan their picnics 10 years from now because the
economic skies are going to be clear, sunny and bright. Yet in order to
pay for it, it is based on projected budget surpluses that may or may
not be there 8, 9, 10 years from now.
It has been said that God created economists in order to make weather
forecasters look good, and if any family would bet their economic
prosperity on surpluses or what will be happening 8, 9 years from now,
I would like to meet them. The other thing that it does not take into
consideration is something that we do know today, and that is the
majority of the surpluses over the next 10 years are coming out of the
Social Security and Medicare trust funds. But no one is talking about
the second decade, when the baby boom generation starts to retire.
What this graph illustrates is what happens in that second decade.
Over the next 10 years, we are running some surpluses in the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds, but in the second 10 years we have
unfunded liabilities that are going to come due; and by backloading
these tax cuts as we are doing with the estate tax, which will not be
fully repealed for 10 more years, as we did with the marriage penalty
relief, as we did with marginal tax rate relief, we are setting up the
next generation of leadership in this body, and we are setting up our
children for failure, because they will not be able to have the fiscal
resources in order to deal with an aging population and their
retirement in the next decade.
The point is this: we could afford as a Nation in 1981 to take the
chance with large tax cuts that led to annual structural deficits
because back then we only had a trillion dollars worth of debt instead
of $5.7 trillion today, and we also back then were not faced with a
crisis with the aging population and the impending retirement of baby
boomers in the second decade. I am afraid if we embark upon this course
of action today with the overall tax plan in this body, we are setting
up the next generation of leadership for failure and taking a huge
gamble with our children's future by making it impossible
[[Page H1421]]
for them to deal with the fiscal realities that we know today we have
to contend with tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 would fully repeal the estate tax and that I
believe is simply unaffordable given the need for debt reduction and
all of the competing tax relief and investment priorities that exist
and the uncertain surpluses available to pay for them. It is fiscally
irresponsible and is so back-loaded that its full repeal cost would not
show up until after 2011. It reduces the rates on the largest estates
first, while providing no tax relief to the smaller estates, so that
estates of less than $2.5 million get no relief until 2004. And once
the estate tax is fully repealed, more than half of the benefits would
go to the largest 5 percent of estates.
Furthermore, H.R. 8 would cost $192 billion over 10 years. Combined
with the first two tax cuts passed by the House this bill raises the
total tax cut to $1.55 trillion over 10 years. And including debt
service costs, the total budget cost is nearly $2 trillion.
I am concerned, however, that the alternative offered by
Representative Rangel does not go far enough. The alternative would
increase the current exclusion to $4 million per couple as of January
1, 2002 and gradually increase the exclusion to reach $5 million at a
lower cost of $40 billion over 10 years. While I strongly support the
increased exemption effective immediately, I believe that we must go
further and lower the estate tax rates, which the alternative bill does
not address. This would restore fairness to this area of the tax code
in a fiscally responsible manner and it would ensure that those who are
most affected by the estate tax are given immediate relief and do not
have to wait for a phase-in of benefits that is lengthy and
complicated.
While, I am in favor of addressing negative effects of the estate
tax, as evidenced by my past votes, I believe that we should also
concentrate on using the emerging budget surplus to address our
existing obligations, such as investing in education and defense,
providing a prescription drug benefit for seniors, shoring up Social
Security and Medicare, and paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt.
In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan testified before the
Senate Budget Committee and confirmed that the rosy budget projections
are ``subject to a wide range of error.'' He also noted that when
considering the emerging budget surplus, ``debt reduction is the best
use for the added revenue.'' Nonetheless, the administration and House
leadership are still pushing large tax cuts above debt reduction.
Mr. Speaker, reform of the estate tax is a bipartisan issue. My
colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that the estate tax
needs to be reformed and updated. H.R. 8, unfortunately, is not the
result of bipartisanship. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to
reach a compromise in the conference report that will better address
estate tax reform by increasing the exemption to at least $5 million
and decreasing the estate tax rates.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important
legislation to completely repeal the death tax once and for all. The
death tax is itself the leading cause of death for over one-third of
small family-owned businesses. Similarly, heart attacks are the leading
cause of death among individuals.
It would not surprise me at all if there are some small business
owners back in my hometown of Orlando who have almost had heart attacks
when they found out that they would have to pay a death tax of 55
percent in order to keep the family business alive.
This is an unfair tax because the money has already been taxed once
on the income level. Let me just give one example of the devastating
impact the death tax would have on one of my constituents back in
Central Florida. Mr. Bruce O'Donohue is the owner of a small family-
owned business called Control Specialists in Winter Park, Florida. His
company sells and installs traffic lights, and he happens to employ 25
people in his small company.
The company has been in the O'Donohue family for 35 years. If by some
unfortunate and tragic accident Mr. O'Donohue and his lovely wife were
taken away from us today, his business would collapse under the tax
load that he estimates to be nearly half of the business' worth, and
Control Specialists would have no choice but to lay off all of its two
dozen employees.
It is important for my House colleagues to realize that the death tax
does not just affect small business owners. It impacts the families
that are employed by small business owners as well.
Now, those who say they like the death tax say that it is needed to
bring in money to the Federal Treasury. The truth of the matter is that
the Federal Government spends more money to administer the death tax
than it brings in.
Repealing the death tax will bring some fairness and common sense
into the system and will create an additional 200,000 extra jobs per
year, according to the Wall Street Journal. I urge my colleagues to
vote yes to completely repeal the death tax once and for all.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is truly one of the most bizarre debates that we
have had here in the House. We are at a time of economic slow down, an
economic slow down that began about the time that President Bush began
talking down our economy, and so Republicans tell us they want to
stimulate the economy. Well, they have about the same chance of
reviving the economy with this bill as they do reviving the dead.
{time} 1130
This bill is not designed to stimulate the economy; it is designed to
stimulate the financial statements of America's billionaires.
Then they parade out the horribles of all the people across America
that are subject to the estate tax--all 2 percent of them--the family
farms being shut down, the small businesses unable to continue. We
Democrats come forward and say, let us get together now to resolve that
problem. Let us proceed 8 months from now, in January, to repeal the
estate tax for 77 percent of the small number of people that are even
subject to the estate tax in this country. Let us eliminate it for
small businesses and family farms and eliminate it promptly.
The Republicans say, no, we do not want to do that. We want to
``repeal'' the death tax, and in order to repeal the death tax for the
billionaires, we must impose upon and hold hostage every one of these
small businesses and family farms that we are so concerned about, we
will hold them hostage and make them subject to tax for the next 10
years. We will continue to assess them a 53 percent tax next year and
still a 39 percent tax in the year 2010. Republicans are continuing to
impose that tax and refusing to exempt one family farm, refusing to
save one family business for the next decade here in America, because
they are so committed to reducing taxes for the billionaires of this
country.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not have to do with the millions, it has
to do with the billions, and the billionaires. They talk about class
warfare, they are winning the class warfare. They are saying to the
small businesses, to the family farms across this country, we will not
do anything about your estate taxes and repeal them all for you next
January, as Democrats are ready and eager to do. We are so intent on
protecting the billionaires in this society, and we do not care if it
wrecks the budget, we do not care if it jeopardizes Social Security and
Medicare, we do not care if it undermines our ability to assure
educational opportunity for young people in this country; we do not
even care if it means imposing the so-called death tax on small
businesses and family farms for the next decade, because we will not
actually repeal it for anyone until the year 2011. And even though you
Democrats, even according to today's Wall Street Journal, offer small
businesses and family farms a better way, a better, speedier form of
estate tax relief than Republicans, we have to do it the Republican way
or no way to assure full benefit and protection for the billionaires.
And that is wrong, and that is why the Democratic substitute must be
adopted.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Kerns).
(Mr. KERNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KERNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the repeal of one of the
most unfair taxes in our country. This tax is
[[Page H1422]]
known throughout the State of Indiana as the ``death tax.''
I am fortunate to represent Indiana's Seventh Congressional District,
and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this important piece of
legislation that will help farmers and business owners throughout
Indiana and across the United States.
Currently the Internal Revenue Service can impose high rates on the
value of Hoosier family businesses or farms when the owner dies. In
order to pay these unfair tax bills, Indiana families are forced to
sell their property that has been in families for generations.
The death tax is a form of double taxation. A farmer or small
business owner pays taxes throughout his lifetime and is assessed
another tax on the value of his property upon his or her death. This is
wrong.
Studies indicate a very high likelihood that family businesses do not
survive a second generation and have an even smaller chance to make it
through a third generation. Now is the time to reverse this trend.
Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with the intent of working for
family-friendly legislation. I believe this bill is a step in the right
direction and will help families achieve the American dream. I join the
cosponsors in urging my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
I can tell my colleagues that back in my district in a little town of
Clinton, Indiana, there was an Irish-American family that came to this
country and built a business, the Randici family. The entire family has
worked their entire life to build that business, and they are not rich,
but they have an infrastructure they have built. If we do not repeal
this unfair tax, their family will pay the consequences and suffer the
consequences.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, remember the old song, the rich get richer
and the poor get poorer? Well, we are about to take a giant step to
make that a truism today. People come to the floor today and will say
that it is time to eliminate this tax. I ask them, why? It is part of
our progressive tax system. Those who are worth the most and make the
most pay a little more than the rest of us.
The fact remains that the Republicans have manipulated this issue to
the point where not only do they change the name of the tax, for there
is no death tax, it is an estate tax, but they have also convinced
every American that they are going to pay it, and that's false. The
fact is 2 percent of the wealthiest Americans ever are subjected to the
estate tax. In the State of Wisconsin, in 1998, there were 45,000
deaths, 45,000 deaths. Of all of those estates, 828 paid a tax. If, in
fact, our proposal to raise the exemption to $5 million would pass in
the State of Wisconsin, only 51 estates would pay this tax.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with Bill Gates, Sr. He says, do not do this.
There is a reason for this tax. And the reason, and I quote him from
Senate testimony when he said, ``Without the estate tax,'' Gates told
the Senators, ``there would be an aristocracy of wealth that has
nothing to do with merit.'' He argued that ``paying the tax is the
price of being a U.S. citizen.''
What do we do with the money? We help people like the students that
were just in the gallery get to college with Pell grants. But we are
told this year we do not have enough money, we cannot provide a sizable
increase. We are told for the seniors we cannot afford a drug benefit,
but we can spend in this bill today $200 billion for the wealthiest of
the wealthy people in this country.
Wealthy people have come forward to us and said, do not do this. This
is sheer nonsense. This is not for the working men and women in my
district in Milwaukee; this is for the Republican contributors, and it
is payback time today, my friends, payback time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, how many speakers he has
remaining?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I think the minority debate might prompt
how many speakers would remain. At this point we could close if the
gentleman from Massachusetts is prepared to close.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against this
estate tax bill, and I ask Members to vote for the Democratic
alternative that will be sponsored by the gentleman from New York.
I firmly believe that we should cut estate taxes for family farms,
for small businesses, and for very wealthy individuals. I think we have
the only bill that achieves this goal in a sensible and responsible and
evenhanded way. Our bill eliminates taxes for individuals with estates
worth more than $2 million, and couples worth more than $4 million. We
exempt 99 percent of all farms. As the Wall Street Journal reported
today, we give more relief, relief to estates valued at less than $10
million through the year 2008. I quote from the article: ``An estate
tax plan by Democrats offers speedier relief than the Republican
proposal.''
The Republican bill does not repeal the estate tax for another 10
years and hides the true cost of this tax cut. It is a gimmick. This is
not an honest tax cut. It is an attempt to white out the cost and keep
the numbers down so they can continue to argue that their tax cut is
reasonable when the exact opposite is true.
This bill creates loopholes that people will use to evade income
taxes. It is tilted to the top 374 estates in America, and it is so
unreasonable, given the other needs in our country and our budget, that
many Americans who stand to make the most from the Republican bill do
not even support it. The best off in our society have formed a
coalition against this Republican proposal. Bill Gates, Sr., Warren
Buffett, George Soros and many others have said, do not give us this
big tax cut. We do not want a huge windfall. We can afford to pay a
reasonable estate tax. We recognize that America is a community, and
people who have profited the most, in their view, have a responsibility
to give something back.
This is a message of fiscal responsibility, discipline, moderation,
and we support it. Today we hit the $2 trillion mark. In less than 3
months, the House of Representatives has passed $2 trillion in tax
cuts, including interest. It is so much money, it makes one's head
spin. It busts the budget. It gobbles up the available surplus, raids
Medicare and Social Security, crowds out all kinds of other priorities.
We will not be able to make the necessary investment in education if
we want to give all of our children a first-rate, excellent public
education, if we really want to leave no child behind. We will not have
the resources to hire more teachers, build more classrooms, create more
preschool and after-school programs. We will not have an affordable
Medicare prescription drug program. We will not be able to extend the
solvency of Medicare and Social Security so it will be there 9 years
from now when the baby boomers start coming to ask legitimately for
their benefits that they have been paying taxes for years to support.
Now, let me finally say that when we add up these three, we are at $2
trillion. I am told there are more coming, and we are going to get to
$3 trillion. I will say one more time for anybody that will listen that
what we are doing here is something we did in 1981, and it took us 15
years to correct the problem.
At the time, in the early 1980s, there was a book written by a man by
the name of David Stockman called The Triumph of Politics. He was the
OMB Director for Ronald Reagan. He served in this body. And the gist of
this book is that the mistakes that were made in the early 1980s were
very hard to correct and caused immeasurable economic difficulty in
this country.
I read from the end of his conclusion in this book at page 394. He is
arguing at the end of the book for a tax increase to solve the fiscal
problems that we faced. He said, ``In a way, the big tax increase we
need will confirm the triumph of politics. But in a democracy,
politicians must have the last word once it is clear their course is
consistent with the preferences of the electorate.'' He said, ``The
abortive Reagan revolution proved that the
[[Page H1423]]
American electorate wants a moderate social democracy to shield it from
capitalism's rougher edges. Recognition of this in the Oval Office,''
he said, ``is all that stands between a tolerable economic future and
one fraught with unprecedented perils.''
I quote David Stockman to this House of Representatives. If we do not
learn from history, we are forced to repeat it. This is a mistake that
we will pay for for years to come. One can break the tax cut into
parts, but one cannot break its effect on the overall deficit and the
overall economic policy of this country. We should not make this
mistake. We made it before. We do not need to do it again.
We talk about responsibility. We need every citizen in this country
to be responsible. But if we expect the people of this country to be
responsible, we as the leaders of this country need to be responsible.
Mr. Speaker, enacting this tax cut, along with all the others, is
totally irresponsible and should not stand. I beg Members to vote
against this proposal and vote for the Democratic proposal, which is
responsible, is fair, and is consistent with a low deficit, fiscally
responsible policy for this country.
{time} 1145
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished vice-chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring us back to the reality of the vote
that is immediately before us, which I presume will be a vote on the
rule. I would like to urge support for the rule. I think the Committee
on Rules has crafted a very fair and good rule for a matter of this
type.
As we did with the budget process, as I recall, we had three
Democratic substitutes. In this case, we have two bites at the apple
for the Democrats, their substitute and the motion to recommit, so I do
not think anybody can say that this is not an extremely fair rule.
I would urge Members' support for the rule, in case there is any
confusion about that.
As for the substance of the bill and so forth, I think that the
gentleman from Missouri made a very good statement about
responsibility. I think that every American craves responsibility to
make our country better and look out for our fellow citizens. I think
that is an individual responsibility.
I certainly welcome that Mr. Soros and Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates have
the capability and the desire to look out for their citizens and others
in the community as their responsibility, not as a mandate from the
Federal government.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As we now have the rule shortly for a vote, I rarely make a
prediction of what this House will do, but I see bipartisan support for
the rule, and hope we would achieve that. We see some minority members
talk about no repeal, some talk about repealing with their plan, and
some cosponsors of H.R. 8 as it comes before us.
This rule is fair, and the underlying legislation as it comes out for
further debate today will allow an opportunity for America to judge
that. It is no longer a debate of whether there will or will not be a
death tax passed out of here and likely signed into law by the
President, but how much and how it plays out, based on versions.
That is an important step, because America watched Democratic control
with 40 years of big spending, big government. Maybe Mr. Stockman, as
quoted by the minority leader, might have spent too much time in the
majority-driven Congress of big spending, versus the amount of time
seeing the result from 1981 to the year 2000, where we are going to pay
down that debt, where we are going to invest in America's future, and
we can still give money back to the American people in their pockets,
rather than having a big government spender, whether it comes out of
Congress or out of the White House, that would drive up spending and
taxes for the American people.
This plan is part of the overall plan that puts money back in
America's pockets and takes the number one issue of NFIB and the
American Farm Bureau and puts it to rest, where it is buried once and
for all, and that is elimination of the tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on House
Resolution 111 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on H.R. 642.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 12, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 80]
YEAS--413
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
[[Page H1424]]
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--12
Baird
DeFazio
Filner
Hilliard
Kleczka
Lee
McKinney
Nadler
Owens
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Wu
NOT VOTING--6
Becerra
Kennedy (RI)
Kirk
Latham
Rush
Woolsey
{time} 1208
Mr. STRICKLAND and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________