[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 119 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6397-H6403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1400
Mr. KLECKZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, there is something that
somehow is not mentioned very often on this floor, and that is our
Nation is going broke. We certainly have military threats, but we have
an even bigger threat of our Nation going broke.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) last year passed this budget,
the President's budget and the President's tax cuts, and the net result
of that budget and those tax cuts, passed with Republican votes in the
House and Senate, because the other body was controlled by the
Republicans then, has increased the national debt by $440,604,894,921
in 1 year.
The President was in Iowa last week saying we need a budget. My
goodness, if it is another one of those, we do not need it. This is on
track to be the largest deficit in American history. The previous
record was held by then-President Bush in 1991 where the fiscal year
budget increased by $435 billion.
If this continues, and we only have 12 days left in this fiscal year,
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) would have orchestrated the single
largest increase in the American deficit in 1 year. And according to
Mitch Daniels, Director, Office of Management and Budget, just last
week in a meeting with a number of conservative House Democrats, only
10 percent of the President's tax cuts have taken effect so far. So how
broke will we be when the other 90 percent kicks in?
Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) well enough
to say that he would not go buy a house and say to the Realtor, I do
not care what it is going to cost because my kids are going to pay for
it. I guarantee Members the gentleman would not go buy a fancy car and
say, I do not care what it costs because my yet-unborn grandchildren
are going to pay for it.
That is the effect of the gentleman's tax cuts. The gentleman took a
Nation that broke even 1 year, and increased the national debt by $440
billion the next there. There is nothing funny about this because the
other side of the aisle are sticking my kids with their bill. Yes, some
kids, like the Bush kids, are going to get a $10 million tax break out
of this; but my kids get stuck with the bill; and until that bill is
paid, they are going to pay, like every other American child, $1
billion a day on interest on that debt.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman thinks more of that is a good thing,
please tell the American people that more debt is good. I happen to
think the national debt is the single largest threat to our Nation at
this moment.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a speech on the floor today that I am the
least effective and that the budget is a joke. That was by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Now we hear from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) that I
am the all-powerful chairman of the Committee on the Budget that can,
with the wave of my hand, both create surpluses and deficits. I would
submit to both gentlemen that they probably not only need to check the
Constitution and the rules of the House, but check the record.
Mr. Speaker, it was Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden. There is a name
out of history that maybe we forget from time to time who had at least
a little bit to do with what has happened this last year; a little bit
to do with the challenges in our economy; a little bit to do with the
emergency that we have before us; a little bit to do with the war
against terrorism. It seems to escape Members' memory banks; but the
one thing that should not escape Members' memory banks is that we
should not have a Tax Code in America that taxes Americans constantly
and consistently when they are not looking. We need to make permanent
the death tax repeal.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) that the September 11 attacks were 19 days
before the end of the last fiscal year. In the last fiscal year, we ran
a deficit. It was not because of the last 19 days. By all accounts the
war on terror has cost this Nation $20 billion. That means the other
$420 billion worth of debt went to other things. Spending increases
occurred because the Republican budget passed with Republican votes.
Reductions in collections occurred because of the Republican budget.
Mr. Speaker, the number is $440 billion. That is a thousand, times a
thousand, times a thousand, times 440 further in debt than we were 1
year ago. One would think that Republicans would be looking for ways to
balance the budget.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of many of the things that we
have accomplished in the 107th Congress. On the House side, we have
passed lots of legislation, from homeland security to pension reform to
cracking down on corporate fraud and misdeeds. We have done a lot of
things. Plus, we have passed a budget. Unfortunately, in a bicameral
legislative body, there needs to be a budget on both sides to get
things moving.
Here an example of some of things that we have done: the House has
voted to end the death tax. Just ending it alone would create 200,000
jobs in America. To say we do not need that, to say that is not
important is ridiculous. It increases household savings due to the
lower prices by $800 to $3,000 a year. The American people want the
death tax cut made permanent.
The President is waiting to sign this bill. Making it permanent gives
people something that they can count on, some dependability. The House
passed this several months ago. The fact is the Senate has not acted on
House legislation to permanently repeal the death tax.
[[Page H6398]]
Unfortunately, that is not the only thing: welfare reform. 14 million
people used to be on welfare. It has dropped now to 5 million people.
Five million people. We are still working on it, but just think about
it, 9 million people are now working and productive citizens. The
American people want welfare reform, and they want us to continue; but
the fact is the Senate has not acted on welfare reform legislation that
the House passed months ago.
Another fact, the Senate has not acted on this legislation. There are
only 11 days remaining before the historic 1996 reforms expire on
September 30. This is not a good way to conduct business in this town;
and this is one thing that the American people want, is us working
together and passing this legislation and getting it to the President.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that our Congress on both
sides of the aisle read the front page of the New York Times Business
Section today. The horror that has been let loose on the American
people has to be accounted for. This is no left conspiracy. What has
been done is unconscionable.
What has happened, they want to exacerbate this situation and make it
worse. In 2001, only 1 million people were eligible for the alternative
minimum tax. When these tax cuts go into effect and the full effect is
there, 37 million people will have been impacted by the alternative
minimum tax. The other side better prepare those taxpayers, or we
better figure out in the 10-year budget how we are going to effect what
has been brought upon this country. The Republicans have forced us into
deeper debt. And those people making between $75,000 and $500,000 will
be impacted even 4 to 5 years from now. The other side of the aisle
better tell them now, tell them what is at stake for them; otherwise
they are doing a disservice to the American taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the friends of the American taxpayer, have they told the
American middle class? Have they read the report from the Brookings
Institute which was made public? I ask the other side of the aisle to
read it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and compliment the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for putting forth a budget and
passing a budget in the House of Representatives. As we all know, the
other body has not even brought a budget to the floor, so it is very
difficult to get important legislation done or appropriations bills in
that other body with the current situation.
This resolution today is extraordinarily important for real people
who are facing a real problem of trying to deal with a tax that they
believe to be wrong. Many believe, as I do, that it is simply immoral
to tax twice assets that people have worked all of their lives to save,
to try and put something together for a family, to build a business,
and then at the day of death have the Federal Government walk in and
say that we are going to take away 50 to 60 percent of those assets
that have been worked a lifetime for.
There are some economists that say that no one pays the death tax; it
is not a big consequence. The fact of the matter is that is simply
wrong. I can give an example of the Behn family in my home county. I
talked to Larry Behn this morning. He is the grandson of Arthur and
Frieda Behn. Larry is selling cars in Hampton today. Back in the early
1980s, he had the misfortune of losing both of his grandparents at the
same time. At that time land values in Iowa and across the Midwest were
at the very highest they have ever been. Because both of his
grandparents passed away at the same time, the valuation of their
property came in at that very high level. They, like most farmers, did
not have the cash to pay that. As the estate settlement went on, the
valuation of farm land in Iowa nose-dived. By the time they were forced
to sell those farms, the 1,500 acres that Arthur and Frieda Behn had
worked a lifetime to put together so their children and grandchildren
would have that opportunity, the valuation was about a third.
They had to sell off that land. Because the valuation had gone down
so much, it barely covered the cost of the death tax that they were
stuck with. Because of that, they have lost those 1,500 acres of land.
They have lost that hope that Arthur and Frieda Behn had put together
over a lifetime. It is simply wrong what this death tax does to real
people. We have got to repeal it and do away with it because it is
wrong. There is right and wrong in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from a couple in my district in 2000
when the debate was going on about repealing the death tax. They write:
``At age 79 and age 77, with serious health problems, my wife and I are
very worried and concerned about how large our estate tax will be. It
is affecting our eating and sleeping habits. Old people like us should
not have to have these concerns.''
Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can say it better than these folks
did, that it does have real effect on real people. It is wrong. We need
to repeal the death tax immediately. I hope the other body would soon
take up this important legislation that the House of Representatives
has acted on a broad bipartisan basis to achieve.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman's tale of the couple sitting
at home and wringing their hands over the estate tax. I represent a
district as large as the gentleman who just spoke, and today if a
couple like that in my district passed away, there is a $2 million
exemption.
{time} 1415
In my district, there are not many people who are sweating over the
inheritance tax because we do not have that wealth. $2 million for a
couple just is not there. What they are wringing their hands over is an
affordable drug benefit for Medicare, something that this House did not
pass in decent form.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, if I could have one wish today, I would wish that
hardworking Americans could take 5 minutes out of their busy schedules
and watch this ridiculous Republican charade occurring right now on
this House floor. They would be outraged, as I am. The President has
not signed even one of the 13 must-pass appropriation bills that fund
everything from the Department of Defense to Federal spending on
transportation, education and health care. Not one. This House has
failed to consider, let alone pass, even one appropriations conference
report. Not one. Yet, with just 11 days left in the current fiscal
year, with eight appropriation bills still to be considered by this
House, we are dithering on a blatantly political and utterly
meaningless resolution on the permanent repeal of the estate tax.
Does the GOP have an ideological predisposition to mismanage? Or has
it been hijacked again by the faction that Newt Gingrich called, and I
quote, ``the Perfectionist Caucus''? Those are Newt Gingrich's words,
not mine. We have already passed a permanent repeal of the estate tax,
a repeal that benefits, as my friend from Wisconsin has said, a few
thousand wealthy families at the expense of millions, not once but
twice. So why this resolution and why now? Here is why. Because the
Republican leadership has made a commitment to put the Labor-HHS-
Education spending bill on the floor next. But it knows that if it does
at current funding levels that eliminate or cut crucial education,
labor and health programs, its moderates will vote it down. You do not
have the votes.
It is hard to be sympathetic with the GOP's plight because it
precipitated this budget debacle by passing its fiscally irresponsible
budget. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget blames the Senate.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget knows full well, if he is
honest with the American public, that nothing that the Senate has or
has not done precludes this House from acting. We have deemed his
budget to be in place. The problem he has is, his side does not want to
vote for the budget that he put in place. It was a charade when we
passed it--I did not vote for it--and it is a charade months later on
this very day.
[[Page H6399]]
So what do we do? We fiddle while Rome burns. We fiddle on silly
resolutions like this that are patently political and purely political
and solely political. The leader is on the floor. What a shame. What a
shame that we fail to do the business of the American public and fiddle
while our budget and fiscal posture in America burns.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time and for
his good work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 524 which
urges the Senate to vote on House legislation to repeal the death tax.
Mr. Speaker, Americans get overtaxed virtually every day of their
lives. As an employee, one's salary gets taxed. As an investor, one's
earnings often get taxed twice. As a consumer, one's purchases get
taxed. After getting taxed at every stage of one's life, why should one
have to be taxed again during life's final stage? It is not right.
On June 6, in an effort to right this wrong, the House successfully
passed H.R. 2143 which would permanently repeal this unjust death tax.
However, the Senate has not acted on this permanent repeal of the death
tax, and many of the family business owners in New Jersey wonder
whether their family business will survive when their aged parents who
started these businesses die. If the repeal of the estate tax is not
made permanent, the tax will be reinstated in 2011 as it existed under
current law.
To avoid destroying many small businesses and savings accumulated
after years of hard work by this death tax, I strongly urge the support
of this resolution and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution, H. Res. 524. I am convinced that death should not be a
taxable event. There is a widely read, widely respected book, the
Bible, that says one of the duties of a parent is to have an
inheritance for their children and grandchildren. Under the present
law, if that duty is fulfilled, up to 81 percent of that inheritance
will be taken by the Federal Government. That is not fair.
To say that we are not moving forward, as my good friend the
gentleman from Maryland was thundering from the well of the House, is
simply not the case. We are working to make sure that our small
businesses and family farms do not lose those farms that their children
can carry on. This is very important legislation. The House has done
its duty. It is very clear. The Constitution says both the House and
the Senate must act in order for this good law to become law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this very important
legislation and help do the job that this House was brought here to do.
We have done ours. Here is our opportunity. I thank the gentleman from
Iowa for bringing it forward and I encourage its support.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 524
sponsored by my good friend Mr. Nussle.
I am convinced that death should not be a taxable event in a free
society. Why should the Federal Government confiscate half of the
assets accumulated through a lifetime of hard work?
The death tax disproportionately affects enterprises that are asset
rich, but cash poor, such as family farms and small businesses.
According to Citizens for a Sound Economy, only 13 percent of family
businesses or farms will survive to a third generation of operation. We
can no longer tolerate this tax on hard work and the entrepreneurial
spirit.
This will not be the final step in reforming our outdated system of
taxation, but we must begin the journey to assure tax policies that
promote fairness, efficiency, and economic prosperity for all our
citizens.
In an effort to alleviate the potential nightmare for future
generations and correct an injustice in the Tax Code, we must
permanently repeal the death tax. I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution calling
for the permanent end of the death tax. I come from an area that has
been hard hit with loss of manufacturing jobs. An area that offers
promise is in small businesses, small farms. The death tax is a job
killer. Last week I was talking to a gentleman from Henry County that
had a small business valued at about $4 to $5 million. He said, I would
like to expand, get more equipment, buy more facilities, have more
property and hire more persons. He said, ``I don't want to go down that
road. The death tax will cost me too much, because I'm hoping to live
past December 31, 2010.''
We need to end this job-killing death tax. We need jobs in America.
One way to do it is kill this tax.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means and probably one of our most important leaders with
regard to the repeal of the death tax.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget for yielding me this time. We have talked about death tax repeal
for a long time. For years, literally. We have talked about the effect
the repeal of the death tax would have in freeing small business to
create more jobs. In fact, if this resolution is successful, small
businesses estimate that 200,000 jobs would be created in this next
year in this country. Certainly at a time of economic downturn, that is
the sort of growth piece of tax legislation that we are looking for. We
have talked about the effect of the death tax on women-owned
businesses. In fact, the National Association of Women Business Owners
a couple of years ago did a survey and they discovered that the cost of
compliance to comply with the death tax is about $1,000 a month for the
average small business owned by women. These are dollars, Mr. Speaker,
that these women would like to put into benefits for their employees,
into health care coverage, a huge need in this Nation. These dollars
are wasted dollars. They go to pay for life insurance coverage so that
at the end of a person's life, that payment to the tax man, to the IRS
man that has to be made in cash within 9 months, could be done and made
easier on the family because of the life insurance policy proceeds. We
have talked about why members of the conservation and environmental
community support the permanent repeal of the death tax. They do not
want to see subdivisions pop up in beautiful farmland that had been a
huge benefit to everybody in the neighborhood. We have talked about the
Black Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Indian
National Council, all the groups that are on board with us to
permanently repeal the death tax. For the minority community, it takes
three generations to develop a business that creates standing. They do
not want to have to give up their businesses that they have put their
hearts and souls into developing. It is a bad tax.
We encourage our neighbors to consider this bill and to pass
permanent repeal of the death tax so that those dollars can be where
they will not be wasted to build the economy of this Nation.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard some pretty outlandish things here this
afternoon. First of all, we were told by the gentlewoman from
Washington who just spoke that next year we are going to create 200,000
jobs if we repeal the death tax, the inheritance tax. The fact of the
matter is it is not going to be repealed under current law until 2011.
So how can we create 200,000 jobs if it is not going to be repealed for
another 9 years? It is all nonsense. In fact, the gentleman from
Massachusetts indicated what we are talking about is a sense of
Congress resolution to tell the other body to do something that we
already did. Understand that? It is a sense of Congress. It does not
change any law. It is like calling your neighbor and saying, ``Hey,
rake your leaves.'' That is what this is all about.
This House already did the bad thing by passing the repeal of the
inheritance tax. And why did we do that? To the benefit of 1.3 percent
of the wealthiest Americans in this country. As I look at
[[Page H6400]]
the gallery, Mr. Speaker, I would bet no one in that gallery is going
to pay an inheritance tax on their estate, for the current law today
has a $2 million exemption per couple. And for those who have a lot
more than $2 million like Mr. Bill Gates, maybe their heirs should pay
something, because in a lot of situations, some of that wealth has
never been taxed, anyway. It could be built up in the stock market. It
could be property value. What my Republican colleagues want to say is,
for the wealthiest 1.3 percent in America, they will pay no tax at all.
This is big bucks. If we do this repeal of the inheritance tax in the
years 2011 to 2021, that is going to cost the Treasury $800 billion.
That is some real money, my friends.
And where are we today in this Federal budget? We are going to end
the fiscal year over $300 billion in the hole. Yet we are giving out
tax breaks for the wealthy like popcorn. The President today is talking
about an unprovoked attack on another country which will cost millions
and millions of dollars. And my colleagues are talking about a tax
break for the millionaires of the country. Is something wacko in here?
Is something not reading right? Yes.
Just recall, 20 months ago as we started this congressional session,
we had surpluses, as my colleague from Iowa said before the Budget
Committee, as far as the eye can see.
{time} 1430
We had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and 20 months later we
are in a $300 billion deficit. Yet those folks are still pushing to
give tax breaks to the wealthiest of individuals.
Now, to take care of the farmers and small businesses we proposed a
$6 million exclusion from inheritance tax. That would take care of 99
percent of the farmers, the ranchers and the small businesses in this
country. But it did not take care of the wealthy ones, and that is why
they are pushing to take care of the Ted Turners and the Bill Gateses
and the other multi-multimillionaires from WorldCom and Enron who
treated their employees so well.
This resolution does nothing, but the tax policy we already passed
does disaster, because it means ``you guys ain't going to get a drug
benefit, your educational construction for New York is not going to be
funded, because we are in a deficit.''
So let us not shed big alligator tears today for the wealthiest of
the wealthy. They can afford their drugs. They send their kids to the
best schools available. It is the people like I represent from
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who are not worrying about an inheritance tax, a
death tax today. They are worrying about paying their mortgage. They
are watching their 401(k)s, their retirement benefits, dissipate as the
market keeps going down, and this administration is doing nothing about
it. They have turned a blind eye, and my retirees are looking now to go
back to work. And we have money around here for the wealthiest of the
wealthy, the richest of the rich?
What misdirected policy. Let us worry about the deficit and take care
of the working men and women in this country. Ted Turner will do well
without this, and his heirs will do better than him.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members
that remarks should be addressed to the Chair and not to occupants in
of the gallery or others who may be watching in the audience.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, to close our side of the debate on this
important resolution, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey). There is no one in our caucus who during his
career has held the banner of tax reform and tax reduction any higher
than our very distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I often reflect these days on what a wonderful privilege
it is in my life to be a Member of this body and to be able to be here
on the floor of this great Chamber and listen to the debates. I marvel
also at the technology that we have, Mr. Speaker, probably the finest
sound system in the world. And when I reflect upon the quality of our
sound system, I am always curious as to why we need to holler so much.
It just fascinates me.
We have been thoroughly admonished, those of us on our side of the
aisle. We have been indicted. We have had fingers pointed in our
direction, sternly and with resolve. We have had the volume turned up
as the feigning of moral outrage had to take a new dimension of
loudness. And as I have watched this debate and have seen the gymnastic
theatrics and volume from especially the other side, I find myself
reflecting on the great speeches of American governance and am
consoled, my friends, by those marvelous words, The world will never
note nor long remember what we say here today.
Why are we here again in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, that has been
perhaps the single most productive Congress in our lifetime, where we
did everything that one would expect to have done by any Congress at
any time, and then met the urgencies of the September 11 attack on
America and the legislative requirements that we took; such a Congress,
so productive, that even The Washington Post describes this as ``the
do-something Congress''?
No, there is not a question here about whether or not we are getting
our work done. We are getting our work done to a degree that is beyond
the experience of any Member in this House. Our problem is over 50
percent of the critical pieces of legislation passed by this House have
not yet found themselves through the complete legislative process; and
so we, out of our frustration, call attention to it.
Why this bill, this ending of the death tax? We have so strong a
conviction that it is wrong. We do not say it is wrong for the small
family farm, it is wrong for the small businessmen and women, and, by
the way, it is okay to impose it on Bill Gates. Bless his heart, Bill
Gates, who has probably given more money to charitable causes in this
country in this past year alone than would be represented by the entire
lifetime cumulative earnings of all the Members of this body alone.
Bill Gates, this charitably active person who we like to come to this
floor and vilify.
If we were to take that point of view, ladies and gentlemen, would we
not say burglary is wrong, and we ought to have laws that protect
everybody in America from burglary, except the Bill Gateses of the
world; ignoring the fact that indeed the burglar would most likely
prefer to burglarize Bill Gates's home as opposed to my home?
If it is wrong, it is wrong for all of us, irrespective of station in
life. This is what a system of justice tells you. There is right, there
is wrong; there are things that are just; there are things that are
unjust; and there is equal protection under the law.
Now, let us talk for a moment about the fellow who works hard and
creates a successful business for himself, his wife, most often his
partner in the venture; somebody that gets together and says, let us
pool our resources, take a risk; let us build this business; let us
construct a better farm, a better living for ourselves and our family.
They take their limited earnings on which they have paid taxes and
from which their after-tax earnings they have acquired some savings,
and they convert that to an investment in their business. They pay
taxes on everything they buy and on any dollar's worth of earnings they
have along the way, and have all their life. And then, after paying
taxes on everything they have owned, earned or done all their life,
they finally have had some success in their life and they have
something that we now know is an estate.
Let us just examine the record of human action. What do people do
with their estates? Well, the most popular thing that we want to do
with our estates is give them to our children. Do we know anybody,
anybody, who does not work first for their children, their
grandchildren, for the future of their family? Just look at the record
of what we voluntarily do with those things we have accumulated in our
life. We voluntarily give them to our children.
Now, if we are not voluntarily giving things to our children, what do
we voluntarily do with the things that we have earned and worked for
and built all our life? We give it to charity. We give it to charity.
How many instances have we had where our family has worked hard all
their life, built a success, have an estate, and then decided I will
voluntarily give it to Washington? I would say rare cases indeed.
[[Page H6401]]
Washington cannot help themselves. Washington has got to grab the
bucks, dip their hands in the estate, rob the grave.
They say, Well, if you take away the estate tax, people will not give
to charity. Why do people give to charity? Because they have it in
their heart. Why do they hire tax accountants and lawyers when they
decide how they will give to charity? To maximize their after-tax
contribution to the charity, because they prefer to. And they pay,
indeed, expensive consulting fees to lawyers and accountants so they
can indeed get a larger share of what they accumulated to the charity
and a lesser share to the government. That is imposing upon them the
requirement that they give.
People are funny. People like to do what they choose to do, not what
they are made to do by onerous tax laws or any other purpose.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that after all the times you have taxed
me all my life on everything I have said, done and earned, to then tax
me at the time of my death, to defraud my children or deny my children
that which they justly deserve because they had the good sense to be my
children, and I love them so dearly, is an injury. It is an injury to
the fondest hope I ever had in my life that my children would do well
and have something better than I had when I started, a not
uncharacteristic American dream.
Who in this room, who in this Nation, does not dream that our
children will have more to begin with and do better than we did? Do we
not devote our life to that work? So the government does harm to the
fondest dream of our hearts when they compel us to deny our children
the fruits of our labor. That is injury.
It is not enough that we should injure the poor American citizen. We,
being the government, must compound the felony by adding insult to
injury. Let me give you an example.
We have a family farm. They have assets that are valued at $4
million. Mom and dad work on that farm each and every day of their
lives. They raise their children, they pay the bills, and they try to
get their youngsters off to college. The typical farmer with $4 million
in farm assets makes a modest $35,000 a year, on which they pay
approximately $4,200 in taxes and struggle to get by and do the things
we all dream to do for our children. $35,000 a year.
Now, you would look at that farmer out there struggling. You see his
wife going again to Easter services in the same dress she had last
year, sacrificing, as they both do, so the kids can have better school
clothes than they would otherwise have, and you say, These are not rich
people. We ought to help them. You would develop enormous farm programs
to help these poor folks on the farm.
Bless their luck, their hard luck. We use the expression hard
scrabble dirt farming. But they have a day in which they get lucky:
they die. They die, and on that day they are instantaneous multi-
millionaires; people to be vilified; people to whom we will point our
fingers and angrily proclaim are the undeserving richest people in
America.
Bless their little old hearts, they had to die to get rich. They had
to die to be mistreated. They had to die to have people in this
government say it is not only just, but it is necessary in the cause of
justice to take half or more of their property away from their children
or away from the charity of their choice. That is insult.
Why are we here again today? Because we are committed to stopping the
injury, stopping the insult. How about us trying to be appreciative of
the dreams of the American people, recognize the manner in which they
struggle, have an understanding of their goodness, and some respect for
what they have acquired, accumulated over a lifetime of hard work, and
say to that poor fellow on his death bed, George, you have worked hard.
What you have got is the fruits of your labor. You have a right to do
with it as you will.
This is America, and we think at least on your death bed freedom
should be your last experience with this government.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this ridiculous
resolution. This is nothing more than the Republicans pandering to
their wealthy contributors six weeks before the election. How timely!
This resolution is a complete waste of time. The House has already
passed a bill to provide permanent repeal of the estate tax earlier
this year, despite my opposition. Now, my constituents back home will
ask. ``Why did you need yet another resolution for something that the
House has already addressed?'' The only truthful answer is that the
Republicans can't agree among themselves on how to proceed with
spending bills this year so they are padding the floor schedule with
meaningless drivel like this to make it appear that Congress is doing
its job. The American people ought to be outraged!
Rather than addressing the critical appropriations bills to keep the
government running, the GOP would rather debate this non-binding,
meaningless resolution. If the GOP doesn't want to work on
appropriations bills, we have 40 million disabled and elderly who
depend on Medicare and have been clamoring for a Medicare prescription
drug benefit. We could address that issue. Or what about the solvency
of Social Security? there are critical domestic issues facing this
Congress--and facing millions of Americans--that ought to be addressed
today.
Repeal of the estate tax will only help the wealthiest one percent of
those who receive inheritance, or around 23,000 estates per year.
Congress is seeing declining federal income receipts; is being asked to
fund a pending war in Iraq; improve security here at home; and must
still address the needs of working families. We have much bigger issues
than a tax that will affect 23,000 wealthy estates. Let's take our oath
of office a bit more seriously and get back to the issues that matter.
I urge my colleagues to reject this absurd resolution and vote no on
H. Res. 524.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support reform of the estate
tax, but I do not support its repeal, and so I do not support this
resolution.
For me, this is not a partisan issue. Instead, it is an issue of
reasonableness, fairness and fiscal responsibility. While I did not
vote for last year's bill that included changes in the estate tax,
there were parts of that bill that I think should be made permanent.
That is why I voted to make permanent the elimination of the ``marriage
penalty'' and the provisions of last year's bill related to the
adoption credit and the exclusion from tax of resolution to Holocaust
survivors.
And, as I said, I support reform of the estate tax. I definitely
think we should act to make it easier for people to pass their
estates--including lands and businesses--on to future generations. This
is important for the whole country, of 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.
Since I have been in Congress, I have been working toward that goal.
I am convinced that it is something that can be achieved, but it should
be done in a reasonable, fiscally responsible way and in a way that
deserves broad bipartisan support. That means it should be done in a
better way than was provided in last year's bill. For example, I have
supported legislation to raise the estate tax's special exclusion to $3
million for each and every person's estate--meaning to $6 million for a
couple--and to do that immediately.
Under that alternative, a married couple--including but not limited
to the owners of a ranch or small business--with an estate worth up to
$6 million could pass it on intact with no estate tax whatsoever. And
since under the alternative that permanent change would take effect on
January 1st of next year it clearly would be much more helpful to
everyone who might be affected by the estate tax.
At the same time, the alternative was much fiscally responsible. It
would not run the same risks of weakening our ability to do what is
needed to maintain and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, provide
a prescription drug benefit for seniors, invest in our schools and
communities, and pay down the public debt.
The tax cut bill signed into law last year included complete repeal
of the estate tax for only one year, 2010, but contains language that
sunsets all of the tax cuts, including changes in the estate tax after
2001. Making that permanent would reduce federal revenues by $109
billion between 2002 and 2012 ($99 billion in lost revenue and $10
billion in interest charges) and more than $1.2 trillion in the decade
between 2013 and 2022--when the baby boomers will be retiring.
But, as we all know, the budget outlook has changed dramatically
since last year. In the last year, $4 trillion of surpluses projected
over the next ten years have disappeared because of the combination of
the recession, the costs of fighting terrorism and paying for homeland
defense, and the enactment of last year's tax legislation. Full repeal
of the estate tax would only make the budgetary outlook even more
difficult, making it that much harder to meet our national commitments
all in order to provide a tax break for less than 0.4 percent of
[[Page H6402]]
all estates. I do not think this is responsible, and I cannot support
it.
And, as if that were not bad enough, just making permanent the
estate-tax provisions of last year's bill would do nothing to correct
one of the worst aspects of those provisions--the hidden tax increase
on estates whose value has increased by more than $1.3 million,
beginning in 2010, due to the capital gains tax. Currently, once an
asset, such as a farm or business, has gone through an estate, whether
any estate tax is paid or not, the value to the heirs is `stepped up'
for future capital gains tax calculations. However, last year's bill
now enacted into law provides for replacing this with a `carryover
basis' system in which the original value is the basis when heirs
dispose of inherited assets. That means they will have to comply with
new record keeping requirements, and most small businesses will end up
paying more taxes. That cries out for reform, but this resolution does
not address that.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are debating this resolution shows that
the Republican leadership is continuing to reject any attempt to shape
an estate-tax reform bill that could be supported by all Members. Since
I was first elected, I have sought to work with our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle on this issue to achieve realistic and responsible
reform of the estate tax. But this resolution does nothing of the kind,
and I cannot support it.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that only
in America can an individual be given a certificate at birth, a license
at marriage, and a bill at death. Americans should not have to visit
the undertaker and the IRS on the same day.
Unfortunately, small businesses and family farms, like those in
Eastern North Carolina, are particularly vulnerable to the death tax.
At the time of their death, Americans are taxed on the value of their
property, often at rates as high as 55 percent.
Mr. Speaker, this places a tremendous burden on families who are
already grieving the loss of a loved one. While small businesses and
family farms are typically rich in assets, they often do not have the
liquid resources to settle this size of bill with the federal
government.
Too often, they are forced to sell some or all of their land or
business, which often serves as their family's livelihood. Over the
years, the death tax has devastated family-owned businesses throughout
our nation's towns and cities. Today, less than half of family
businesses are able to survive the death of a founder.
What could be more un-American? Under current law, 70 percent of
family businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent
do not make it to the third generation. The death tax discourages
savings and investment, and punishes those Americans who work hard
throughout their lives to pass on something to their children.
Mr. Speaker, the estate tax does not serve as a significant source of
revenue for the federal government. The Treasury Department reported
that in 1998, the estate and gift tax raised only $24.6 billion, which
amounts to only 1.3 percent of total federal revenues.
In addition, economic studies conducted by former Secretary of the
Treasury Lawrence Summers show that for every dollar in transfer taxes
taken at death, $33 in capital formation is lost from the economy.
Despite its little value to the government, the death tax undermines
the idea that hard work and fiscal responsibility will be rewarded.
Thankfully, this Congress provided a phase-out of the estate tax
beginning in 2002 by eliminating the 5% surtax and the rates in excess
of 50 percent and increases the exemption to $1 million. Today, we need
to take steps to ensure this phase-out is permanent and does not sunset
in 2011. If H.R. 2143 is not signed into law, the death tax will re-
appear, almost overnight on New Year's Eve, 2011.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has done an admirable job of guaranteeing
tax relief for every working American. Let's pass this bill now and
finish the job we started when we took back the people's House in 1995.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as stated on the record many times, this
Member continues his strong opposition to the total elimination of the
estate tax on the super-rich. The reasons for this Member's opposition
to this terrible idea have been publicly explained on numerous
occasions, including past statements in the Congressional Record, and
today this Member gain will reiterate the reasons for his opposition to
the permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax.
This Member has every expectation that legislation to permanently
repeal the Federal estate tax is going nowhere in the other body.
Furthermore, on March 18, 2002, this Member noted, in his House Floor
statement on H.R. 536, that he will most assuredly vote ``no'' on the
total repeal of the inheritance tax, and this Member would further note
that he in fact did vote ``no'' on the total repeal of the inheritance
tax.
This Member again would say that while he is a long-term advocate of
inheritance tax reduction, especially in regard to protecting family
farms and ranches, and small businesses, this Member strongly opposes
the permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax provisions. This Member
believes that inheritance taxes unfortunately do adversely and
inappropriately affect Nebraskan small businesses, farmers, and
ranchers when they attempt to pass this estate from one generation to
the next. This Member also believes that the estate tax elimination
provisions are at worst a faulty product and at best only a shadow of
what could be beneficially done to reduce the inheritance tax burden on
most Americans who now and in the future are actually subject to such
estate taxes.
It must also be noted that this Member is strongly in favor of
substantially raising the estate tax exemption level and reducing the
rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and that he has
introduced legislation, H.R. 42, to this effect. This Member believes
that the only way to ensure that his Nebraska and all American small
business, farm and ranch families and individuals benefit from estate
tax reform is to dramatically and immediately increase the Federal
inheritance tax exemption level, such as provided in H.R. 42.
This Member's bill (H.R. 42) would provide immediate, essential
Federal estate tax relief by immediately increasing the Federal estate
tax exclusion to $10 million effective upon enactment. (With some
estate planning, a married couple could double the value of this
exclusion to $20 million. As a comparison, under the current law for
year 2001, the estate tax exclusion is only $675,000.) In addition,
H.R. 42 would adjust this $10 million exclusion for inflation
thereafter. The legislation would decrease the highest Federal estate
tax rate from 55 percent to 39.6 percent effective upon enactment, as
39.6 percent is currently the highest Federal income tax rate. Under
the bill, the value of an estate over $10 million would be taxed at the
39.6 percent rate. Under current law, the 55 percent estate tax bracket
begins for estates over $3 million. Finally, H.R. 42 would continue to
apply the stepped-up capital gains basis to the estate, which is
provided in current law. In fact, this Member has said on many
occasions that he would be willing to raise the estate tax exclusion
level to $15 million.
Since this Member believes that H.R. 42 or similar legislation is the
only responsible way to provide true estate tax reduction for our
nation's small business, farm and ranch families, this Member will once
again state his reasons, as follows, for his opposition to the total
elimination of the Federal estate tax.
First, to totally eliminate the estate tax on billionaires and mega-
millionaires would be very much contrary to the national interest.
Second, the elimination of the estate tax also would have a very
negative impact upon the continuance of very large charitable
contributions for colleges and universities and other worthy
institutions in our country.
Finally, and fortunately, this Member believes that actually it will
never be eliminated in the year 2010.
At this point it should be noted that under the previously enacted
estate tax legislation (e.g., the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act), beginning in 2011, the ``stepped-up basis'' is
eliminated (with two exceptions) such that the value of inherited
assets would be ``carried-over'' from the deceased. Therefore, as noted
previously by this Member, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act could result in unfortunate tax consequences for
some heirs as the heirs would have to pay capital gains taxes on any
increase in the value of the property from the time the asset was
acquired by the deceased until it was sold by the heirs--resulting in a
higher capital gain and larger tax liability for the heirs than under
the current ``stepped-up'' basis law. Unfortunately, H.R. 2143 made the
stepped-up basis elimination permanent resulting in a continuation of
the problems just noted by this Member--higher capital gains and larger
tax liability for heirs.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, while this Member is strongly supportive of
legislation to substantially rise the estate tax exemption level and to
reduce the rate of taxation on all levels of taxable estates, and as
such introduced legislation to this effect (H.R. 42), this Member
cannot in good conscience support the total elimination of the
inheritance tax on the super-rich. Therefore, this Member will be
voting against H. Res. 524.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 524. This
resolution, expressing the view of the House on permanently repealing
the death tax, also reflects the view of the American people concerning
the death tax. Across this country shopkeepers, farmers, small
manufacturers, and everyday individuals who managed to save for their
families through hard work and sacrifice are urging the passage of the
Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2002. Passage of that act will
provide added incentives for savings and productive
[[Page H6403]]
investment, and end the harmful dissolution of family farms and
businesses. Idaho towns and farms in particular are hard hit by the
death tax and urgently seek its permanent repeal. I urge members of
this House to join a bi-partisan majority supporting H. Res. 524,
supporting H.R. 2143, and supporting the American dream.
{time} 1445
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the resolution is considered read
for amendment and the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this resolution will be postponed.
____________________