[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 554-555]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ESTATE TAX REPEAL

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the stimulus 
package, one that I firmly believe we should have as a nation. It is 
clear to me that while we may have a stronger economy today than we had 
3 months ago or 6 months ago, we still are in a period of very slow 
growth, if at all, and one where I think we need an insurance policy to 
make sure our economy does turn around, it does pick up, and does 
better in the new year. We have real needs of the unemployed to address 
and their loss of benefits in our society.
  There are plenty of reasons to believe we ought to encourage business 
investment through a bonus depreciation plan, and we need to help our 
States that are running huge deficits with Medicaid matches and in 
other areas.
  For the life of me, I do not understand why we would think that 
making permanent an estate tax cut 10 years in the future is going to 
do a doggone thing to stimulate the economy now. While I have great 
respect for the distinguished Senator from Arizona, I think this idea 
of calling for the permanent repeal of the estate tax is just a bad 
idea.
  Last year, I did believe there was a need for some reform with 
respect to the estate tax. I thought it was onerous on many small 
family farmers and also for small businesses and some individuals who 
were trying to deal with relatively limited estates. I thought it was 
burdensome on these folks.
  I strongly opposed before I was here and I strongly oppose now the 
complete repeal of the estate tax. Those Americans who have done well 
and have had the benefit of the American promise in its greatest format 
I think have a responsibility to give some contribution back to the 
country that gave them the opportunity to do so well. We are all a part 
of that community. It seems reasonable that an estate tax fits within 
that concept.
  We can talk about the rates and about some elements of it, but it 
seems to me there is reason to believe those who have benefited so much 
have a responsibility to their community and society. Furthermore, it 
is a gift from one generation to the next, and if we are going to be 
consistent in how we treat various parts of our Tax Code, gifts are 
taxable and so, too, should be estates.
  That is not the issue today. The issue is: Is this stimulative to the 
economy? Is it something that makes any sense in the short term to get 
America's economy moving again?
  For the life of me, I just do not understand it. Whatever one might 
think, there is just no credible argument that would show it is going 
to do anything to stimulate the economy today.
  So I firmly want to speak out against this particular amendment 
because we have limited resources in this country. We have a fiscal 
structure that is very dangerous with regard to our needs not only in 
this decade but certainly in succeeding decades when the estate tax 
will really have a bite, as opposed to in the short run coming in, in a 
10-year time frame. We have a demographic bubble that is going to 
change the underlying demands on Social Security. The number of people 
drawing it down will bankrupt it, or at least the resources will not be 
available to pay the benefits at a time many folks would expect them to 
come forward with their Social Security payments.

[[Page 555]]

  To complicate that problem further by making permanent this estate 
tax repeal is difficult to understand, particularly since it is 
implausible to believe anybody is going to change one whit their 
spending patterns today based on an estate tax repeal that is going to 
get implemented 10 years from now. So it is an amendment that I think 
has no place on a stimulus package or a stimulus bill that we might be 
working on today.
  Again, I question whether we need a repeal under any circumstances 
for in fact it provides a huge windfall for a very small number of 
estates at the expense of the greater population. The estates of fewer 
than 48,000 people had to pay any tax at all in 1998. That is less than 
2 percent of all estates. The beneficiaries of that estate tax, those 
burdened with that estate tax, are some of the wealthiest folks in 
America.
  I think it is fine to be wealthy, but the fact is we have great needs 
in this country. We are making choices about whether we are going to 
fund an additional 2 million new teachers so we can lower class sizes 
in this country. We have a Social Security system that everyone says is 
going to be stretched to meet its needs as we go through the 21st 
century. We have great demands on our homeland security, on national 
security. It does not make sense that we should be putting this in 
place right now.
  Also, it is dangerous for something that is really important to all 
Americans, and that is our charitable and philanthropic efforts in this 
country. It is hard to imagine what kind of impact the repeal of the 
estate tax is going to have on so much of the roughly $6 billion worth 
of charitable contributions the Treasury Department estimates we would 
be receiving. I am concerned about our ability to continue to make sure 
we have the community-based support that is operated through our 
philanthropic efforts. If we have ever seen the value of that, we have 
seen it in the days that have followed the September 11 tragedy as 
Americans have reached out to help others. Certainly that has been 
benefited by the view that charitable contributions and estates provide 
a basis for a lot of the charitable giving.
  So while this permanent repeal of the estate tax may cost $55 billion 
in 2011, and that is a lot of money, I think the real issue is we ought 
to worry about what it is going to cost in the second decade. I have an 
estimate that it may be over $800 billion in the second decade from 
2012 to 2021. I find it hard to believe we want to take that bet at 
this point in time, when we have such a serious issue coming with baby 
boomers and the demographics that I spoke about before, and the real 
need to protect and provide security to Social Security and Medicare 
for our seniors. I guess that is before we have a prescription drug 
benefit for seniors and other things we have talked about.
  I do not have a clue how we could put this together and call this 
significant stimulus. I think there are fundamental reasons to believe 
that it is not a good policy in the long run. So I strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment. I think there will be reason for 
further debate about this as we go forward in the future.

                          ____________________