[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.

                          ____________________