[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 88 (Monday, July 10, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1357]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. STEVE ISRAEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 22, 2006

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  I believe that estate taxes at 2001 levels were inherently unfair. 
And I voted to reform those levels by increasing the exemption and 
lowering the tax rate through 2010. Today, I would vote for all estate 
tax reform that permanently raised the exemption to $3.5 million for 
individuals and $7 million for couples, while lowering the rate to 45 
percent.
  Unfortunately, the majority has refused to even entertain a 
compromise. In fact, they won't even allow us to vote on a compromise, 
even though they could vote against it. They insist that we either take 
or leave their bill: a $700 billion cost, added to an existing $8 
trillion debt.
  Why do we need compromise? Why can't I support the legislation before 
us today? For three reasons.
  First, at a time of war that has been described as ``generational'', 
when we experienced shortages on the battlefield, funding cuts in 
Pentagon weapons systems, and cuts in homeland security funding to my 
constituents in New York because of budget strains, adding an 
additional $700 billion in estate tax relief is irresponsible. How is 
it that we have $700 billion for estate tax relief, but just cut funds 
for a critical Air Force advanced energy program? Why is it that we 
slashed college loan programs because we had to save $12 billion, but 
we have $700 billion for estate tax repeal? How is it possible to 
defend cutting Homeland Security funds to NY by $80 million because we 
can't afford it, and then pass a bill that spends $700 billion to 
repeal the estate tax?
  Second, I have been fighting for meaningful and permanent relief of 
the Alternative Minimum Tax, which has become the largest middle class 
tax increase in history. The Administration and Republican leadership 
of Congress has not agreed to real alternative minimum tax relief. All 
we can afford they say, is a temporary bandage every year. The cost of 
the permanent AMT reform that Representative Lowey and I have 
introduced is about $400 billion. The cost of permanent repeal of the 
estate tax is $700 billion. Why is it that we can't afford tax relief 
for millions of middle class families, but we can afford twice the cost 
for tax relief to several thousand estates?
  Third, a $700 billion liability to the Federal Treasury represents a 
staggering unfunded liability for our children. Let me prove my point 
in specific and non-partisan terms.
  Recently I attended a meeting with the Comptroller General of the 
United States. He was chosen to this position by President Bush, the 
Republican Speaker of the House, and the Republican Leader of the 
Senate.
  The Comptroller described the long term fiscal position of the 
Federal Treasury. Over the next 30 years, Federal revenues will remain 
fairly constant as a percentage of the federal budget. On the spending 
side--even if we do what we have never been able to do, and keep 
spending at the level of inflation--our total costs will skyrocket, 
particularly with the rapid growth of our aging population. The 
resulting gap between revenues and expenses will be so huge that in 
2040, the entire Federal budget will be adequate to pay for only two 
things: interest on debt, and a small piece of social security. 
Everything else--the military, veterans benefits, the FBI; the CIA, 
education, health, homeland security--will require either a 
catastrophic tax increase on our children, or abolishment by our 
children. And today, we add $700 billion to their problem.
  Mr. Speaker, we can provide estate tax relief that is affordable and 
fair, by allowing a vote on Mr. Pomeroy's substitute. But denied that 
opportunity by the leadership, I cannot support a ``take it leave it'' 
bill. Not when, by taking this, I leave the real bill to our children.

                          ____________________