[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13660-13662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            ORDER FOR RECESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
recess today from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 in order for the weekly 
party conferences to meet. I further ask unanimous consent that the 
time count against the postcloture debate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I know Senator Wellstone 
has been here a long time, and I have been here a long time. Is there 
any way we can work out an order of recognition when we come back after 
the conference lunches? I ask Senator Roth if that would be possible.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I 
think it would be a good idea if we could work out an order, and I am 
pleased to do so.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I request that the Democratic side give us a 
list of the order, and we will try to develop one as well. Then when 
the manager comes back for the Democratic side, we will see if we can't 
work that out.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask my friend, Senator Dorgan, after the party 
luncheons, if he intends to continue to speak.
  Mr. DORGAN. No, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER. As we have it now, it is Senator Wellstone first and 
myself second. I would defer to our ranking member and the chairman to 
work this out. If you could take that into consideration, I will not 
object to the request.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I wonder whether I 
could ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak since I have 
been here all morning, when we come back from the break.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would have to repropound his 
request.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, Senator Moynihan and myself will work this 
out. We will try to work it out so we can alternate back and forth.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the unanimous consent as originally 
propounded, is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. I have a parliamentary question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota yielded for a 
unanimous consent to be propounded. The floor returns to the Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the facts are not very evident with 
respect to this debate in most cases.
  I thought it would be useful to quote from an interesting 
publication, the ``Farm and Ranch Guide''--it is a well-known 
publication to most farmers and ranchers--an article by Alan Guebert, 
``A Tax Break for the Rich Courtesy of Family Farmers'' is its title.
  He points out that in 1997, according to Internal Revenue Service 
data, 1.9 percent of the more than 2 million Americans who died paid 
any estate tax at all; only 1.9 percent paid any estate tax at all.

       As skinny as that slice was, an even skinnier 2,400 estates 
     paid almost 50 percent of all estate taxes . . .

  His point was, there are not many estates that are subject to an 
estate tax. I believe we ought to enact a generous exemption for family 
farms and small businesses so that no family farms or small businesses 
will be caught in the web of an estate tax.
  It is not as if this is a riveting debate, of course. The estate tax 
is a complicated issue. It can be highly emotional. As we see in the 
Senate

[[Page 13661]]

today, it is not going to keep people glued to their seats.
  I suggest, however, the purpose of taxation is to pay for things we 
do in this country together. We build roads together because it doesn't 
make sense for each of us to build a road separately. We build schools 
because it makes sense that we do that together. We provide for a 
common defense. It requires taxes to pay for all this. It is what we do 
as Americans.
  I probably shouldn't name particular cities, but go mail a letter in 
some cities around the world and see how quickly that letter moves. Go 
drive on some roads in rural Honduras and see how well your tires hold 
up. Go take a look at some of the services in other parts of the world 
and then evaluate what your tax dollar buys in this country. That is 
part of our investment in America. Some say that the payment of taxes 
is something we don't like very much--I think all of us share that 
feeling--so let's relieve that burden. They come to the floor with a 
plan. The plan is in writing and says, what we want to do is relieve 
the burden of the estate tax.
  We say: That's all right. Let us relieve the burden so that nobody of 
ordinary means is going to have to pay an estate tax.
  They say: No, that is not what we mean. Our idea is more than that. 
Our idea is, we want to remove the estate tax from everybody, including 
the largest estates in the country. So they say: our idea is to reduce 
the amount of revenue the Government has and to do it by relieving the 
burden of the estates tax on the largest estates.
  We say: Well, that is an idea, but here is another idea. If we are 
talking about $250 billion in 10 years of tax relief, why go just to 
400 of the wealthiest Americans? Why not provide some of that to the 
rest of the American folks?
  How about to working families? How about some relief from the high 
payroll taxes people pay? How about some more relief from the cost of 
sending kids to college?
  We have some ideas. But we are told: Your ideas don't matter. We are 
going to deal only with our own ideas, and those are ones that would 
benefit the upper-income folks. But we want to put clothes on it to 
disguise it a little because we know it doesn't sell very well to talk 
about providing tax relief to billionaires. We are going to disguise it 
to make it look different and call it tax relief for family farmers and 
small businesses.
  But we support such relief. Let's do that right now. In fact, perhaps 
the Senator from Nevada could put forth a unanimous consent request. We 
can legislate like they do--don't go to the committees, don't have 
markups; just bring it to the floor and put forth a unanimous consent 
request. They have done that on the estate tax. Yesterday, they did it 
on the H-1B proposal. Perhaps we can say we support eliminating the 
estate tax for small businesses and family farmers and do it their way. 
That is not a good way to legislate, but let's try that. Then we can 
get that off the table so all that remains is the question, Are we 
going to provide a very substantial amount of tax relief to those 400 
or so estates that represent the largest accumulation of wealth in the 
country? If that is the priority, what is it measured against--against 
the other priorities? Is it the most appropriate? Is it the most 
logical thing to do? Or are there other uses of that revenue that would 
make more sense for this country?
  In summary, that is something that I think will be subject to a 
substantial amount of debate in the coming weeks. I wish to close where 
I began and say that there is a profound difference that exists between 
many of us and the majority party on the subject of whether the largest 
estates in this country should be relieved of the burden of paying an 
estate tax. I think there is a better use for those funds than tax 
relief for billionaires. On the other hand, there is no difference 
between us on whether we ought to make a quantum leap and provide a 
very significant exemption for the transfer of family farms or small 
businesses. And for a dramatic and substantial increase in the unified 
exemption from the current roughly $675,000 level, I would support 
taking that to the $4 million level for a husband and wife. I think we 
can do that. There certainly should be agreement on that. We can take 
that step, and what is left is an idea to relieve the rest of the 
burden by some of the majority, and other ideas that we would have for 
the use of those funds, including middle-income tax relief. Let's have 
that debate. It seems to me that would be the simple way of proceeding.
  I wanted to make some of those points. I appreciate my colleagues who 
are also going to make some points in the postcloture discussion. Then 
we should have this debate, with amendments. I think time agreements 
could be developed, and I think at the end of the debate we would see 
where the votes are in the Senate on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request, 
without losing his right to the floor?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have discussed this with the chairman of 
the Finance Committee. After the recess, which will be in a few 
minutes, we would like these Senators to speak. On our side of the 
aisle, the order of speakers would be Senators Wellstone, Boxer, 
Feingold, Kennedy, Durbin, and Harkin on postcloture regarding this 
estate tax matter. On the Republican side, the speakers who have been 
requested are Senators Burns, Kyl, and Grams so far. We will alternate 
back and forth. The majority will fill in a couple more speakers so 
there would be a requisite number on each side. People on my side have 
indicated they would take a half hour or so, but we won't lock in the 
time at this time, only the order of speakers.
  I ask unanimous consent that we be able to do that at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Idaho allowed to complete 
his time?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under a unanimous consent agreement, we are 
slated to recess at 12:30, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak for a few 
moments. Senator Dorgan was on the floor talking about the character of 
his State and the character of this issue of estate tax or death tax, 
whatever we wish to call it. I call it that which destroys the American 
dream.
  I have always been amazed that anyone who serves in public life can 
justify the revenue they spend for the sake of Government as somehow 
destroying someone else's life or property. Yet over the years, 
clearly, the estate tax provision of our national Tax Code has done 
just that.
  The Presiding Officer is from the State of Wyoming. I am from Idaho. 
Much of our States are made up of farmers, ranchers, and small business 
people. Really, the character of the business and industry of our 
States is made up of small businesses.
  Some of us strive all of our lives in a small business to create a 
little estate that we then want to hand to our children, if they choose 
to carry on that which we have developed. Yet in nearly every instance 
today, under current law, to be able to carry on that small Main Street 
business or that farm or that ranch, you have to re-buy it. You have to 
sell it to get the revenue to pay off the Federal Government, and then 
you spend the rest of your life, as the person who is the inheritor, 
paying for the business.
  That is not the American dream. That is not what built the basis of 
wealth in our country which has generated this tremendous economy, 
which employs the men and women who make up the workforce of our 
economy. That is why I and others have consistently argued that, 
clearly, we needed to either eliminate the estate tax or do it in a way 
that recognizes those small- and medium-size

[[Page 13662]]

proprietorships and businesses that are not held in stock or in 
corporations. That is exactly what we are attempting to do.
  I am always amazed that the other side will come to the floor and 
say: Well, this is a great idea, but then again we ought to consider 
this or that, and maybe we ought not to do that, and that somehow it is 
wrong to generate wealth in our society and to want to be able to pass 
it on to our children and grandchildren.
  Shame on those who want to deny the American dream. Shame on those 
who want to deny the energy and the spirit that has created this 
country and made it the greatest country ever known on the face of the 
Earth--a country great for its ability to allow individual citizens to 
grow and generate wealth in business. That is what this debate is 
fundamentally about. So anybody who wants to come to the floor and deny 
us as a Congress, as a people, the right to deal with this issue in a 
fair and equitable way simply denies the average citizen of this 
country the American dream.
  Let us not get lost in the words. Let us not get lost in the 
phraseology about a little bit here and a little bit there, and we have 
to have all this money to spend in Government. This is the time of the 
greatest prosperity in the history of this country. There are articles 
out there saying that the surplus is going to double and triple into 
the trillions of dollars; yet we still have in the law a situation that 
says: If you die, you lose. If you die, the Government gets your work. 
If you die, all of the lifetime you have spent building a little 
business, a farm, or a ranch is somehow no longer yours.
  I am sorry, but I am not going to get fouled up in the rhetoric, and 
I am going to continue to come to the floor to try to cut through the 
silly philosophy that somehow the Government has a right to all your 
money. What we have here is a responsible and legitimate piece of 
legislation to change the tax law of this country to gradually move us 
out of the situation that says if you die, you sell your business and 
the Government gets the money. What is wrong with medium- and small-
size businesses that are not large corporations or stock-held 
businesses? What is wrong with allowing your children to have them, if 
they want them to continue that business and continue that legacy?
  That is the issue that is before us. That is what is embodied in H.R. 
8.
  I suggest that anybody who would want to say something different--
whether it is on the minor side, or whether they want to use the 
politics of the day to deny this to the average American--shame on you. 
I don't see any good politics in that kind of bad politics.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I failed to be courteous to my friend from 
Idaho for allowing me to interrupt. I express my appreciation for his 
willingness to do that.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________