[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9957]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                DISADVANTAGES OF ESTATE TAX REPEAL BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night, I spoke for 5 minutes to try to 
list the disadvantages of the estate tax repeal bill that we will deal 
with tomorrow. Unfortunately, 5 minutes, or perhaps not even an hour, 
is sufficient to list all those disadvantages.
  First, let us put this bill in context. Once it is fully phased in, 
it will cost this country $50 billion a year. All of that tax relief 
will go to the richest 1 percent to 1\1/2\ percent of American 
families. Basically all of the tax relief goes to those with assets of 
$10 million and more.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides $50 billion of tax relief basically 
for families with assets of more than $10 million and provides not a 
penny of tax relief for people who make $10 an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, we tried to add an amendment to this bill to say that 
its provisions would become applicable only upon certification, that 
the debt will be paid off by 2013, and that Medicare and Social 
Security will remain solvent.
  The supporters of this bill on the Committee on Rules refused to even 
allow the House to debate that Sherman-Stenholm amendment. So we have 
before us a bill that makes no attempt at all to provide tax relief for 
working American families.
  It costs us $50 billion whether or not that drives Social Security 
and Medicare into the red or not. But the disadvantages continue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will dramatically cut charitable giving. Now, 
I am not talking about charitable giving when somebody puts $5 or $10 
in a collection plate. But if one goes to any college campus or major 
hospital in this country and one sees the buildings named after the 
multimillion-dollar donors, those are the donors who have consulted 
with their estate planning lawyers before they made that gift. Those 
are donors who decided to give only knowing that they would save 50 to 
75 cents out of every dollar on their taxes for what they gave to the 
universities.
  Those universities, not getting those charitable contributions will 
come to this House and ask us for money; and we will say, sorry, we cut 
Federal revenues by $50 billion in the estate tax bill. We cannot help 
you.
  Mr. Speaker, when one goes to the universities in the future, the 
buildings will not have names, because the charitable contributions 
justifying naming a building after someone will not be made.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, however, actually increases taxes on one 
group of people: widows and widowers. It takes away from them most of 
the step-up in basis which reduces income taxes on the sale of assets 
that they acquire from their deceased spouse. So while providing $50 
billion of tax cuts, it increases taxes on widows and widowers.
  The bill is supposed to make it easier for family businesses to stay 
in the family; yet not a single statistic has been put forward as to 
how much the estate tax is driving families who choose to sell their 
businesses nor whether it is better for the economy to sell businesses 
to those who really want to be in that business rather than those who 
inherit them.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is certain to be vetoed. So it is a 
show, a show of where we stand in terms of our values; but mostly, it 
is delay. Because if instead this House worked together, we could 
provide reasonable estate tax relief for upper middle-class families 
who are currently caught either paying the tax or caught having to draw 
long estate planning documents bypass trusts, extra tax returns every 
year for widows and widowers, all in an effort to escape a tax that was 
never designed to be applied to them anyway.
  So I have introduced a bill that would say that, if someone inherits 
assets, they also inherit the unified credit. So that every husband and 
wife could pass to their children $2 million in assets without paying a 
single penny of estate tax and without having to deal with bypass 
trusts, Form 1041 special income tax returns, and all of the 
complication the present law afflicts them with.

  Mr. Speaker, there are 50 billion reasons to vote against the bill 
that we will consider tomorrow.

                          ____________________