[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5434-S5435]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MEASURE RETURNED TO THE CALENDAR--H.R. 8

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, H.R. 8 is returned 
to the calendar.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I opposed full repeal of the 
estate tax, but I supported a commonsense compromise to cap the estate 
tax exemption at a reasonable level for all families, and eliminate the 
tax completely for family farmers and small business owners.
  Full repeal of the estate tax is hugely expensive, it will cost 
nearly a trillion dollars over the next 20 years, it is grossly unfair 
because it benefits only the tiny number of Americans who pay the 
estate tax under current law. In fact, in 1999 only 636 Minnesotans 
paid any estate tax what so ever. Only 36 of those estates were valued 
at $5 million or more. This is simply not a burden that falls on many 
families.
  In contrast, many rely on Social Security. Over 740,000 Minnesotans 
currently receive Social Security. The vast majority of these are 
retired seniors, others are severely disabled. For many it is their 
only source of income. I find it outrageous that colleagues are 
proposing to use the Social Security surplus, which nearly a million 
Minnesotans rely upon, to give a massive tax break to the heirs of a 
handful of Americans.
  Nationally, only 1.6 percent of all estates were made up with 
significant small business assets, and only 1.4 percent had significant 
farm assets. This means that virtually all the estate tax is paid by 
extremely wealthy people who do not own farms or small businesses. It 
also means that we could eliminate the estate tax for small businesses 
and farms and not engage in a massive raid on the Treasury.
  Proponents of last year's massive tax cut portrayed the legislation 
as completely protecting small businesses and family farms from the 
estate tax. But as a cost saving gimmick, the law only does so for only 
one year.
  Business owners were used as pawns last year, and they are again this 
year. Now they are frustrated trying to plan for their families' 
futures around this scheme and they shouldn't have to be.
  I supported a commonsense compromise that would have capped the 
estate exemption at a reasonable level, $8 million for a married 
couple, lifting the burden of the estate tax from 98 percent of 
estates, but maintaining the tax for large, wealthy estates.
  In addition, the Dorgan amendment would have totally exempted family-
owned small business and farm assets from the estate tax if the family 
of the current owner wishes to continue to operate the business or 
farm. Because this relief would have been permanent, business owners 
can plan their affairs with confidence and security. And this complete 
repeal for businesses and farms would be effective next year, unlike 
the republican proposal where family business owners would have to wait 
until 2010.
  In an ideal world I would have written the Dorgan amendment 
differently. I would strengthen the family-owned business provision to 
ensure than only smaller business and farms, with 200 employees or less 
would qualify for this exemption. But I voted for the Dorgan

[[Page S5435]]

amendment because it is still far better than full repeal. It retains 
the estate tax for the ultra-rich, but would protect small business 
owners and family farmers. And it would save hundreds of billions over 
the next 20 years compared to full repeal.
  Let me also point out one final irony in this debate. I mentioned 
yesterday the bizarreness of colleagues voting against raising the debt 
limit, and then in the same day turning around and supporting a bill 
that would raise the national debt by hundreds of thousands more.
  Today's irony is that this is supposed to be a debate about small 
businesses, but my friends on the other side are opposing the Dorgan 
amendment that gives permanent relief from the estate tax from small 
businesses and family farmers right now--compared to 7 years from now 
under the Gramm approach. Let me repeat that, my colleagues on the 
other side say they are for the small business owner. They say they are 
for the family farmer. Yet they are opposing immediate relief for small 
business owners and farmers. Why? To protect their tax breaks for 
billionaires.
  Small businesses and farmers are the pawns in this debate. They have 
literally been used by those who want to give billionaires a tax break. 
I don't know if there is a single person in this body who would oppose 
giving permanent, targeted estate tax relief to small business owners 
and family farmers. I think it could pass 100 to 0. But it didn't 
because if the supporters of full repeal let the small business owner 
get relief then they lose this issue. And they won't get repeal for 
billionaires. And they would rather have the issue to campaign on, and 
they aren't going to let the little guy on Main Street get his tax 
break unless they can get it for the fat cat on Wall Street.
  The Dorgan amendment should be an eye opener for small business 
owners and farmers. It betrays the real agenda behind full repeal of 
the estate tax. It's not about the little guy. It is not about the 
shopkeeper, the farmer, the contractor, the wholesaler. They are the 
hostages in this debate.
  I will not jeopardize Social Security--which tens of millions of 
Americans rely upon for their retirement--to grant tax breaks to the 
heirs of multi-millionaires and billionaires.
  We cannot afford to give a few lucky Americans a tax free inheritance 
of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars and protect the tens of 
millions of Americans and over 740,000 Minnesotans who rely on Social 
Security.
  But we can afford to shield small estates, small businesses, and 
family farms from the estate tax at the same time we safeguard the 
retirement security of all Minnesotans. That is what I voted to do.

                          ____________________