[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 82 (Thursday, June 22, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4427-H4433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5638, PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 885

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5638) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit 
     against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of 
     $5,000,000 and to repeal the sunset provision for the estate 
     and generation-skipping taxes, and for other purposes. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. The amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 885 is a 
closed rule providing 1 hour of general debate in the House on H.R. 
5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report 
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to 
gradually phase out the death tax and eliminate it by 2010. However, if 
Congress does not act to extend this relief, in 2011 small business 
owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death 
tax up to the maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent.
  The death tax is a form of double taxation, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, 
it is simply unfair.
  The last thing families in central Washington and across the Nation 
should have to worry about when a loved one dies is losing a family 
farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. But 
sadly, that is the situation many hard-working families could face if a 
permanent and workable solution is not agreed to.
  H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, would provide estate 
and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family 
farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption from $1 
million to $5 million per person, indexed for inflation, and it would 
lower the amount of taxation on estates.
  The bill would also provide tax relief for gifts given during a 
person's life. Currently, gifts given when a person is alive are taxed 
more than gifts given through a will or death. By reunifying estate, 
gift and generation-skipping transfer taxes, we give individuals 
greater flexibility to give gifts during their life rather than at 
death.
  I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent 
deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State 
of Washington, there are 8.5 million acres of privately owned forests, 
and the forest parks industry is the State's second largest 
manufacturing sector.
  However, the current Tax Code puts our timber industry at a distinct 
disadvantage against international competition by subjecting corporate 
timber and forest product industries to a significantly higher income 
tax than their overseas competitors. Included in the underlying bill is 
a provision that lowers the timber tax and supports an industry that 
provides good jobs in many rural communities, while strengthening its 
international competitiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, last year I, along with 271 other Members of the House, 
supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the 
death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will 
continue to work with my colleagues on both sides to accomplish, this 
relief measure is a step in the right direction.
  The Rules Committee reported House Resolution 885 by a voice vote 
last night. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Republican colleagues for 
providing the American people with

[[Page H4428]]

the clearest possible demonstration of just how stark the differences 
are between the priorities of our Nation's two major parties.
  We have before us a bill whose sole purpose, the sole purpose is to 
funnel as much as $1 trillion over the next decade to a mere handful of 
our Nation's richest families.
  It is telling that Republican leadership is so committed and so 
determined to see this legislation through that it called an emergency 
meeting of the Rules Committee last night to make sure it reached the 
floor this morning, even though it will not take effect for 4 years.
  Now, let me tell you a bill that will expire is the Voting Rights 
Act, but we could not deal with that. This is the Republican definition 
of a national emergency, to get as much money as we can to the richest 
among us. It is not unprecedented national debt. That does not bother 
them. The struggling middle class? No. Or the fact that tens of 
millions of Americans scrape by from paycheck to paycheck, scrape by 
without health insurance, without help and, in many cases, without 
hope.
  To get this bill to where it is today, the Republicans had to ignore 
the needs of virtually every American citizen. The repeal of the estate 
tax will benefit less than 1 percent of the people in this country, but 
those few individuals that it helps will profit handsomely.
  Take Lee Raymond, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who recently secured 
a retirement package worth almost $400 million, and who last year made 
more in a single day, probably in a single hour, than the average 
American family makes in an entire year. Lee stands to gain up to $211 
million from this legislation that he will not pay taxes on.
  President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the officers of the Cabinet 
will not do so badly either. Together they will pocket anywhere from 
$91 million to $344 million. Just the Cabinet.
  People like these are among the three-tenths of 1 percent of 
superrich Americans who pay an estate tax, and that is it. The other 
99.7 percent do not see a dime. Such an astonishingly lopsided outcome 
is to be expected when we realize who is actually behind this bill.
  A recent report from the group Public Citizenry revealed that 18 of 
the richest families in America, families worth a combined total of 
$185 billion, have been conducting a concerted and clandestine campaign 
on its behalf for a decade. We are talking about families that are 
heirs to the fortunes of families like Wal-Mart, Campbell's Soup and 
Mars, Incorporated. These 18 families, Mr. Speaker, have spent $490 
million in the last decade in their effort to pass this bill. Imagine 
that, $490 million to lobbyists, and if it does pass, their investment 
will certainly have been worth it because over $70 billion will be 
headed their way.
  For years, supporters of a repeal of the estate tax have claimed that 
the people they really want to help are America's small businesses and 
farmers. Well, as is so often the case, that is a lie. Small business 
families rarely, if ever, pay estate taxes, and the American Farm 
Bureau, one of the leading proponents of this repeal, has failed to 
provide even one legitimate example of a family that lost its farm 
because of estate tax requirements.
  This is the kind of government Republicans have used their time and 
power to give us, Mr. Speaker. Multibillionaires say, jump, and the 
majority says, how high?
  Bills like this are so outlandish and so entirely justifiable, they 
would be comical if they were not an assault on the strength of our 
Union, which is, I might remind everyone, at war.
  Consider the opportunity cost of this bill. For the up to $1 trillion 
Federal that this leadership plans to give away, we could fully insure 
every single American who does not have health insurance, all 44 
million of them. Think of that. We could fully fund the Medicare part D 
prescription plan. We could pay for all military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and then we could use the money left over from that to 
fully fund No Child Left Behind, and, finally, give every child in 
America the education the President promised when he took office.
  The sad thing is that what we have today is exactly the kind of 
legislation Americans should expect the majority, whose leader has 
bragged about never having voted for an increase in the minimum in his 
25 years in politics, that is what we should expect from a party that 
would not allow the Congress to adjust the minimum wage for inflation, 
a party that would have, over the decades, permitted it to remain at 
the pathetic $3.35 an hour.
  I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to try 
surviving on that one for a month, Mr. Speaker, and think about the 
trillionaires who are going to say this is chump change to them, and 
they do not care. But the notion that they would say if taking away the 
taxes of the very rich would stimulate the economy, while increasing 
the pay of the weakest among us, the people who are least paid, will 
hurt the economy, is an absurdity on its face.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a telling moment for this country. It is a 
moment in which this leadership clearly demonstrates once and for all 
what its priorities are. It is making the decision that educating our 
children is not worth the investment, that ensuring our parents and 
grandparents receive the prescription drugs they need is not worth the 
investment; that fixing our broken health insurance system is not worth 
the investment; that curbing our crushing national debt is not worth 
the investment; but investing in the ultrarich is worth every single 
dime that can be squeezed out of the Federal Treasury.
  The bill embodies the very definition of ``America for Sale.'' 
Today's Republicans are alone in this belief, Mr. Speaker. Great 
leaders throughout the history of our Nation have understood that our 
collective strength lies in our support for the working and the middle 
class. They have understood that the extreme polarization of wealth 
this majority is ushering in is fundamentally bad for America, and 
among those who believe that are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
  I implore my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the sake of 
our children, for the sake of our future, for the sake of our military, 
for the sake of common decency, defeat this bill and begin again to 
work for the people of this Nation and not against them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile just to put a little bit of the 
historical context on this issue because it has been around for some 
time.
  In the 106th Congress, for example, in the year 2000, the House 
passed a bill to phase out the death tax in 10 years and permanently 
repeal it. When it passed the House, it got 279 votes, obviously 
bipartisan. Sixty-five Democrats voted for it. In the other body, in 
the Senate, it passed the Senate with 59 votes, obviously on a 
bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by the President 
in the 106th Congress.
  So, in the 107th Congress, in 2001, once again, the House passed the 
bill to permanently repeal the tax, phase it out over 10 years, and 
that bill garnered 274 votes, again a bipartisan vote out of the House.

                              {time}  1030

  Unfortunately, in the Senate, we were unable to get a full repeal 
and, instead, the death tax was phased out over 10 years, but would 
revert in 2011 to the 2001 rate. The expectation, of course, was that 
the Congress would deal with that before 2011 and fully repeal it.
  In the 108th Congress, once again the House passed a bill to fully 
repeal the death tax, 264 votes out of the House, again on a bipartisan 
basis; and in the 109th Congress, this Congress, once again the House 
passed a full repeal, 272 votes, again on a bipartisan basis, with 
Democrats joining Republicans to repeal it.
  The unfortunate thing is this leads us to where we are right now, and 
that is that the cloture motion failed in the Senate. It takes 60 votes 
in order to cut off debate in the Senate; and, unfortunately, the 
Senate only received 57 votes. So, therefore, that issue won't be taken 
up.
  This is an effort, then, to try to get to a position where we can 
pass this bill out of the House and in fact pass it out of the Senate 
so that we can have some certainty as far as estate planning. So this 
issue has been around for some time. It has always enjoyed bipartisan 
support.

[[Page H4429]]

  This rule simply provides for us to continue what we have been doing 
in the last four Congresses, and that is to pass and address this issue 
in a bipartisan manner. This issue has been around, I think it is 
timely, in fact, it is time for us to act on this. Accordingly, I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the ranking leader for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again this House will consider an estate tax cut 
for the wealthiest people in the United States. Once again the 
Republican leadership is forcing their chosen bill through the House 
without the opportunity for any alternative, even though Democrats 
asked for and presented a germane substitute before the Rules Committee 
last night.
  Last night, the Rules Committee rushed this bill through under 
``emergency procedures.'' That is right, the Republican leadership 
considers it an emergency to pass a tax cut for some of the wealthiest 
people on the planet, a tax cut that won't take effect for 4 years.
  Mr. Speaker, the real emergency is what is happening to American 
workers. We are considering another estate tax cut for the wealthy 
during the same week that this Republican leadership killed an increase 
in the minimum wage for America's lowest-income workers.
  Last week, the Appropriations Committee approved an increase in the 
minimum wage and included it in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill, but the majority leader quickly said that the House will not 
consider that provision. This week, the Appropriations Committee 
defeated a similar effort.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1997, nearly a decade ago, this Congress raised the 
Federal minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. Since the last increase, 
Congress has voted itself a raise nine times, increasing its own salary 
by $35,000. Now, in contrast, Mr. Speaker, a person earning the minimum 
wage over that same time continues to earn only $10,712 per year.
  The Republican leadership should ask the minimum-wage family whether 
their health care costs, their property taxes, their heating and 
gasoline bills, or tuition for their kids have stayed as flat as the 
minimum wage. Of course not.
  Here is what it boils down to: the Republican leadership has decided 
it is more important to protect estates that are worth at least $10 
million instead of helping to increase people making just $11,000 a 
year in salary. Mr. Speaker, we have an emergency in our country. We do 
have an emergency in our country: working families are struggling each 
and every day. They deserve a raise more than millionaires deserve 
another tax break.
  We should be debating today an increase in the minimum wage for 
workers in this country. We should be doing something that will make a 
difference in the lives of people who are struggling in this country. 
And, instead, here we go again bringing the estate tax bill up again, a 
bill that benefits mostly people who are very well off. We can do much 
better than this. We need to get our priorities straight.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time on 
this important issue. I do rise in support of the permanent Estate Tax 
Relief Act of 2006, although I am mindful, as I listen to my good 
friend who just spoke about the estate tax, of what Confucius once 
wrote a millennium ago. He said: ``When words lose their meaning, men 
lose their liberty.''
  I would prefer in the balance of my remarks to speak not about an 
estate tax, because I do not know too many estates in eastern Indiana, 
but I would rather talk about the death tax, because this is a tax that 
is death to the American Dream for small business owners and family 
farmers all across eastern Indiana.
  It is why, Mr. Speaker, I have dedicated myself in my nearly three 
terms in Congress to the principle of ending this immoral tax, a tax 
which, by the way, was instituted in 1916 primarily to raise revenues 
for World War I. It was a product of a time where the redistribution of 
wealth was seen globally to be an acceptable practice of economics. It 
was the very nascent time of socialism on the world stage, and America 
embraced this principle of redistribution with the estate tax in 1916.
  Let me just say that I believe death taxes are immoral. I believe it 
is morally wrong to make death a taxable event. I believe it is also 
morally wrong to say to small business owners and family farmers and 
any American, whatever their means, that after a lifetime of obeying 
the law and a lifetime of paying your share honestly and legally to the 
Federal Treasury that we will make your death a taxable event.
  So I want to say today that I still believe that we ought to repeal 
the death tax, and the legislation we will consider under this rule 
does not repeal, but I want to say that it is relief and it is progress 
and this Congress should embrace it.
  The estate tax relief provided in previous legislation is scheduled 
to end in 2010, and what we will pass today will literally bring 
permanent estate tax relief to millions of American families, 
especially increasing the exemption to $5 million per person effective 
January 1, 2010. So let me emphasize that what we will do today is not 
repeal, but it is relief; and I want to recognize that progress and 
embrace it.
  Let me close with a word of caution to our colleagues who may think 
of this as a starting point, that this is a deal, Mr. Speaker, that we 
can send down the hallway and we can negotiate from: let me say, having 
spoken to many of my colleagues who share my belief that we should 
repeal this onerous death tax outright, that if this is the deal, it is 
a good deal for the American people. But we say with conviction: this 
far and no farther. We must demand, at the very minimum, this relief 
stand when this bill goes to the desk of the President of the United 
States.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you so much for yielding me time. I think we are 
getting closer to the truth when the previous speaker spoke out as to 
why we have an inheritance tax in the first place. And while he talked 
about World War I, I think he was emphasizing what he called a 
socialistic type of government, where redistribution of the wealth was 
the issue rather than the actual resources that are raised.
  I am convinced that a large number of people, especially the 
Republicans in this House, look at this not as a revenue issue but as a 
policy issue. Oh, yes, they call it the death tax because they think 
this is a way of packaging something, saying that death should not be a 
taxable event. But realistically, if you are dead, you certainly are 
relieved of your taxes. So it is the live people you are talking about; 
people who have hopes and dreams that they would be able to acquire the 
inheritances of those that preceded them.
  So the real reason, perhaps, of having this tax was to make certain 
we had a middle class, that you did not find the superwealthy being 
able to influence the politicians and the Congress. And if that was the 
reason, and I will have to research it, even though some experts 
thought there was a social policy reason, if ever there was a time to 
review this policy, it would be now.
  The Joint Economic Committee, which is not Republican or Democrat, 
has indicated that under existing law, when the estate tax goes to $3.5 
million, an estate that would be exempt, and $7 million that would be 
exempt, they say that we would be talking about only 7,500 actual 
estates. Now, if this does cost $800 billion, or close to $1 trillion, 
then what we are arguing about is whether or not 7,500 people could 
cause us to go into the deficit further by having their benefits 
restored.
  In other words, what we are saying here is that while the Nation is 
at war,

[[Page H4430]]

while we are spending $300 billion or $400 billion, while we have a $9 
trillion debt, while we are cutting even the services of veterans and 
those that are fighting, that philosophically the majority believes 
that we should shatter the so-called Estate Tax Inheritance Act, the 
death tax, no matter what the economic expense is.
  So we are not doing this for this Congress or this election; we are 
doing it to change the direction of the United States Government so 
that the items of resources to pay for education and health care, and 
even our national defense, are going to be jeopardized because some of 
you believe that the richest of the rich should be protected from an 
equitable distribution of tax liability.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to a colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding, and I do rise today in strong support of the rule and this 
underlying bill, and I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support them both.
  As a cosponsor of H.R. 89, the full repeal of the death tax, I was 
disappointed to see the inability of the Senate to obtain cloture on a 
full repeal of the death tax. I firmly believe that the death tax, the 
estate tax, is a double taxation and, philosophically, it is wrong.
  We have all heard the statements, I think Steve Forbes said this 
several years ago, that there should be no taxation without 
respiration. More recently, I have heard the comment that we shouldn't 
try to balance the budget by robbing the grave. And there are other 
comments: a death should not be a taxable event. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) just said that. I fully agree with every one of those 
statements.
  The gentleman from New York also said, well, you know, in this time 
of war, in this time of deficits, in this time of debt, we should be 
able to get this money. We are not, Mr. Speaker, always going to be in 
that situation. But if we continue to double tax any American, that is 
a forever situation and it is forever wrong.
  So, clearly, I was in favor of full repeal. However, I believe the 
bill before us today is a very strong compromise. It will protect many 
more families, small businesses, and family farms from this double 
taxation, or the so-called death tax.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it also, with a manager's 
amendment, is indexed for inflation. Those of us, the fiscally 
conservative Members of our side, felt very strongly about that, and I 
am pleased with that addition.
  I know many of my colleagues are as disappointed with the failure of 
the other body to pass a full repeal as I am; but as many of us say, we 
cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good. So I think there 
is a lot of good in the bill that Chairman Thomas has brought to us 
today and that we are discussing at this moment. We have an opportunity 
to take a substantial and a permanent chunk out of the death tax with a 
bill that can pass the Senate. They assure us, and I believe, that 
there will be 60 votes for this bill.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank Chairman Thomas and 
the committee for their commitment and all of the hard work in bringing 
this bill before us today. Now is the time for us to pass some real tax 
relief and eliminate the most egregious form of double taxation.

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post reports today that 
middle-class neighborhoods are evaporating in America. It says that it 
is happening because the gap in this country between the rich and poor 
is rising at an alarming rate, making it harder for families to raise 
their children.
  And what we consider today will only speed up that process: an estate 
tax cut giving an enormous tax cut to the richest 10,000 estates in the 
Nation, no one else. And don't let them fool you, it is not about small 
business, it is not about family farms; the 10,000 richest estates in 
the Nation. It will cost $762 billion in the first 10 years alone, this 
at a time when we are spending between $5 billion and $8 billion per 
month on the war in Iraq.
  Meanwhile, our productivity as a Nation has risen by about 14 percent 
as the real wages of nonmanagerial workers have risen less than 2 
percent. So when people look at the statistics, they wonder where is 
the rest of that money going? All they need to do is look at this 
Congress and the Republican leadership of this House emptying the 
Treasury for the likes of millionaires and billionaires.
  Democrats believe this country is not about survival of the fittest 
but opportunity for all. Democrats understand the pressures on middle-
class families: rising health care costs, education, home heating oil, 
gas prices. We believe we could be raising the minimum wage, one of the 
best tools we have to keep families from falling off that economic 
cliff. It has not been raised in almost a decade. Had it been adjusted 
just for inflation since 1968, those families would be making $9.05 
instead of $5.15.
  And if this Congress can get a raise, the American people ought to be 
able to get a raise. But the Republican majority is afraid to let this 
House even have a debate, a choice, between yet another tax cut for 
millionaires and a wage increase for families. They are afraid of that 
real debate that Americans want to have about their economic future.
  The American people want us to walk in their shoes, understand their 
lives. They don't want to see millionaires and billionaires be able to 
get a tax cut that will help to bankrupt this Nation. What they do want 
to see is their wages increase. We need to raise the minimum wage and 
oppose this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation; in fact, in enthusiastic support. I am a 
cosponsor and have voted several times in this Chamber for permanent 
repeal of the death tax. This is not repeal, but it is relief, and it 
is significant relief.
  I listened intently to the gentlewoman who spoke just before me. I 
found that a curious argument. I guess I see America and Americans a 
little bit differently. I think we ought to be incentivizing and 
stimulating and celebrating the achievement of the American dream every 
possible way we can.
  I was in business myself, private business, all my life before I came 
to this Chamber, and as a community banker, I banked, I partnered with 
a lot of small business people. I celebrated their path to trying to 
create wealth and keep a business, especially a family business, going 
generation after generation.
  I don't believe there is anything more egregious that government has 
ever done to disincent the achievement of the American dream than the 
death tax.
  We tax everything you buy, everything you sell, you get to the end of 
the year, and if you happen to magically have something left, we want a 
piece of that. And then when you finally close your eyes for the last 
time, we are going to take our piece of what you have managed to 
accumulate through your lifetime. I think it is close to criminal, if 
not criminal.
  Today we have an opportunity to provide some relief to those that do 
what so many come to this Nation for, to achieve the American dream. We 
have a chance to provide them some relief, some hope that what they 
worked all their life for, to accumulate something, maybe a business, 
maybe a family asset, pass it on to their children and their children's 
children, and that they might be able to do that without the threat of 
the Federal Government taking it away from them with excessive 
taxation.
  It is with a great deal of pride and, frankly, a great deal of 
personal experience that I rise again in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. This is not, again, the permanent repeal that I 
think would be the best thing to do, but I think what we have before us 
is an opportunity to work with the other body to actually make law that 
will make a difference for Americans, American families, and our

[[Page H4431]]

constituents back home that we all support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying to my friend 
from Indiana, I think it would be helpful for this Congress to have the 
information about all of the family farms that have gone out of 
business in Indiana because of this estate tax. I think it would be 
helpful if we wrote to the appropriate officials in Indiana to get that 
list so we could share it with everyone here and see how it impacts 
this legislation.
  I want to say, the last 24 hours will tell you everything you need to 
know about what is wrong with Congress: holding up the Voting Rights 
Act; knocking down the minimum wage increase; relieving the superrich 
from responsibility for paying estate taxes; and keep sending our 
children to fight and die in a war based on lies. That, by the way, is 
the real death tax, and it is paid by the poor and the middle class.
  Our new motto should be: ``United We Stand, Sure. But Divided We 
Profit.''
  H.R. 5638, the estate tax legislation, should be more accurately 
described as the American Idle Act, I-D-L-E, because it relieves the 
children of billionaires and multimillionaires of over one-quarter of a 
trillion dollars of estate taxes in just the 5 years starting in 2013. 
The $2,600 per taxpayer loss of revenue will take money from our 
schools, our health care, our senior citizens, and our veterans.
  The Bible says it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a 
needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. Here in Washington, the 
superrich ride elephants, and hopefully no donkeys, to get to their 
alabaster heaven where they pay no taxes.
  Money, most of which has never been taxed once, will continue to gush 
upwards. The estate tax is cleverly tied to the capital gains rate, 
currently at 15 percent. Estates up to $25 million or $50 million for a 
couple will pay the capital gains rate of 15 percent, and those over 
that will pay double the rate; but what will happen when Congress 
eliminates the capital gains tax? There will be no estate tax because 
one or even two times zero is still zero. At that time the destruction 
of the middle class will be complete. The ascendency of a new 
plutocracy will be complete.
  Allan Sloan of Newsweek put it this way 2 years ago: ``In the name of 
preserving family farms and keeping small businesses in the family, 
President Bush would create a new class of landed aristocrats who would 
inherit billions tax-free, invest the money, watch it compound tax-free 
and hand it down tax-free to their heirs.''
  President Lincoln didn't pray for a government of the wealthy, by the 
wealthy and for the wealthy at Gettysburg. He prayed for a government 
of the people, by the people and for the people. Whose prayers are we 
answering here?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who was denied an amendment in the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows only one 
alternative. You know, it has been said before but it deserves 
repeating today: As our troops fight for democracy in Iraq, we ought to 
show that we can have democracy on the floor of the House.
  I went to the Rules Committee with another alternative for reforming 
the estate tax, and to have on a party-line vote the majority refuse to 
allow the Members of this body to even consider any other alternative 
but the Thomas proposal, in my opinion, does violence to notions that 
this is a deliberative body where ideas can be considered.
  The bill before us is not a reform bill of the estate tax, it is 
virtual repeal, and make no bones about that, virtual repeal of the 
estate tax.
  Look at this chart. The cost of the alternative I advance and have 
not been allowed to offer is 40 percent the cost of repeal. Our early 
estimates on the full phased-in cost of the Thomas proposal is that it 
will lose 80 percent at least of the revenue of full repeal. That is 
not a compromise.
  I bet you are going to hear some of these guys say we are going to 
compromise. This is not a compromise, it is virtual repeal. You lose 80 
percent of the revenue, it is virtual repeal, no compromise.
  Now this is a shocking loss of revenue to help a very, very few 
people. The proposal that I was not allowed to introduce would have 
made exempt all of the estates but for 3/10 of 1 percent.
  Earlier there was a gentleman from Indiana said small businesses have 
been lost all over the State of Indiana. I believe he is factually 
mistaken. I issue a challenge to him right now and anyone else, bring 
me the names. Bring me the names.
  There is no fact whatsoever behind these assertions that this is 
about small farms and family businesses. This is about the wealthiest 
estates in this country, and now let me put it really to bear.
  The distribution table on the Thomas proposal is that of the $800 
billion that would be lost between 2010 and 2020, 43 percent would go 
to those worth more than $20 million. In a decade when we are going to 
have 78 million Americans turning 65, we have Social Security going out 
of balance in 2018, we have Medicare going out of balance in 2012, we 
are going to take $800 billion and ship it to those who make more than 
$20 million? What in the world are we thinking about?
  Medicare and Social Security apply to everybody. The estate tax 
proposal advanced by the majority today applies to way fewer, way fewer 
than 3/10 of 1 percent. This sliver showed the number of estates that 
would have been taxable under the proposal I have not been allowed to 
offer today. Their proposal that goes to the $20 million crowd and up 
even deals with a smaller number yet. What in the world are we 
thinking?
  The preceding speaker said he cannot think of anything more that does 
violence to the American dream than the death tax. Let me tell you 
about a few other things that do violence to the American dream: This 
Congress running up a debt and having to vote not just once in March, 
but again in May to raise the borrowing limit of the country, putting 
us nearly $10 trillion in debt. Another thing that does violence to the 
American dream, the cuts that have been made in student loans so people 
can pursue the notion of upward mobility, they can get ahead in this 
world, but they cannot afford to get to college, and they cut student 
loans in the face of it.
  And yet the portion of the American dream that they seem most 
concerned about is for this $20-million-and-up crowd, even while we 
have no idea how we are going to solve this Medicare solvency imbalance 
or how we are going to fund the Social Security imbalance.
  Let me come back to the basic issue presented by this rule. How come 
we only have their plan to consider? We have a plan, a plan that makes 
the estate tax go away completely for 99.7 percent of the people in 
this country, and they won't even allow it for consideration. Vote down 
this rule, vote down this virtual repeal of the estate tax.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New 
York how many speakers she has, because I at this time have no more 
requests.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I too have no further requests for time, so I will 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we ought to call this tax is the Paris 
Hilton tax. Paris Hilton, once this is passed, will be able to jetset 
again around the world buying herself more bling and more little dogs 
to carry around in her purse, and probably never work a day in her 
life.
  But while we are helping Paris with her problems, I think we need to 
think about the poorest among us, those people working two and three 
minimum-wage jobs every single day simply to try to keep themselves 
alive and that we have turned our backs on now for over a decade.
  So I urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the 
Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage for the first 
time in almost 10 years. The bill is identical to the minimum-wage 
language included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was 
supposed to come to the floor this week, but was pulled by the 
leadership.

[[Page H4432]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule provides that 
immediately after the House adopts the rule for the Paris Hilton bill, 
it will bring H.R. 2429 to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The bill 
will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of 
$5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we started to help workers, instead of making 
the very rich in this Nation richer. And I want us to stop this 
nonsense that we are doing this for poor farmers. Nobody can come up 
with a name of a poor farmer. And we will ask the State of Indiana to 
give us a list of all those people who went under because of this tax.
  But we are considering another massive tax cut for our Nation's 
wealthiest. And to make matters worse, it is done the same week that 
the leadership of the House blocked legislation to increase the minimum 
wage for those who need the help the most.
  America's low-income workers need our help, but millionaires don't. 
We are losing our middle class. One of the best things we can do to 
help the low- and moderate-income families is to increase the minimum 
wage. It has been, as I said, a decade since it was voted to increase, 
and it was signed in law in 1996 with the last increase in 1997.
  After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at 
its lowest level since 1955. The purchasing power of the 1997 increase 
has eroded since then by 20 percent. A full-time minimum-wage earner 
working 40 hours a week makes $10,700 annually, an amount that is 
$5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The minimum wage 
now equals only 31 percent of the average wage for the private sector 
and the nonsupervisory workers, and that is the lowest share since the 
end of World War II.
  Mr. Speaker, can there possibly be any doubt that we are long overdue 
for another increase in the minimum wage?
  Leadership in this House has managed to implement numerous tax breaks 
for the wealthiest Americans, including this billion dollar budget 
buster that we are considering today, but turns its back on those who 
work the hardest and are paid the least, those with no lobbyists, those 
who struggle to make ends meet every day. They don't have any lobbyists 
but us on their side. And I think it is time for Congress to step up to 
the plate and help those who need it most, not just those with the 
fattest bank accounts.
  And those who say an increase in the minimum wage will hurt business 
and economy are plain wrong, and facts argue just the opposite.
  So I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can help 7 million-plus American workers who will 
directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
  And let me close by saying this is a very sad day because I believe 
this bill will pass. And I think this Congress of the United States 
will go on record as saying that we don't care about those people other 
than those who can hire the lobbyists and do everything that they want 
to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Brown.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking 
member; and with what is going on here today, I know soon that you will 
be Chair, because this is really a very sad day in the House of 
Representatives, the people's House.
  Once again, we are doing like what has happened in this House over 
and over again, practicing what I call reverse Robin Hood. When I was 
coming up, my favorite program was Robin Hood. Well, what this House, 
under the Republican leadership, constantly practices is reverse Robin 
Hood. What does that mean? Well, it means robbing from the poor and 
working people to give tax breaks to the rich.
  Today, instead of debating a fair minimum-wage bill, we are debating 
a near repeal of the estate tax bill for millionaires. This is a bill 
that benefits only 6 to 7,000 very, very wealthy people. This does not 
help the poor or the majority of working Americans at all. This reverse 
Robin Hood policy which gives tax breaks to the very wealthy robs from 
the rest of us and leaves us with very little money to provide services 
like educational loans, health care, homeland security, transportation, 
our Nation's veterans, our seniors, our children, the poor.
  This is the reason why 77 percent of the American public does not 
believe that the United States Congress represents their interests. And 
this reverse Robin Hood bill is a perfect example of why.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and send 
this horrible bill back to the drawing board.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me just review. This 
issue has been around in Congress for some time. This House has acted 
on full repeal of the death tax for the last three Congresses on a 
bipartisan basis. But the reality is we simply can't get this through 
the full Congress because the other body simply doesn't have the votes, 
supermajority votes, I might add, to close off debate over there, so we 
have to pass something that can pass both Houses of the Congress. This 
bill does that. And it is important that we pass this bill as soon as 
we possibly can so those that are trying to plan estates after 2010 can 
make those plans with some certainty.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a good rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 885, Rule for H.R. 5638--Permanent Estate 
                         Tax Relief Act of 2006

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an 
     increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of 
     January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for a amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question.

[[Page H4433]]

     That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________