[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 7748]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ESTATE TAX REPEAL

  Mr. BAUCUS. I support estate tax repeal. But I am forced to vote 
against Senator Kyl's amendment for permanent repeal because of two 
concerns. First, I am concerned about mounting deficits, and second, I 
believe that this amendment would result in payment reductions to rural 
providers under Medicare.
  The budget resolution we are debating today includes tax cuts that 
total $1.3 trillion. The budget also proposes that $725 billion of 
these tax cuts be enacted immediately, under the reconciliation 
process.
  Two years ago, we passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I supported that 
tax cut. But those were different times. We had a surplus. We did not 
foresee the significant decline in revenues. Or the deficits that 
followed.
  This is not the time to reduce revenues by $725 billion. It would 
hurt our budget and our economy.
  In order to prevent the passage of tax cuts that would drive up the 
deficit and hurt our economy, I believe that we must reduce the size of 
this tax cut.
  While Senator Kyl has stated that he intends to pay for his 
amendment, I am concerned that his offset would have a negative impact 
on rural providers in Montana. The cost of his amendment is estimated 
to be $46 billion. And when asked how he proposed to offset this cost, 
he stated that it should come from a general fund for Finance Committee 
action.
  According to the Senate Budget Committee, this amendment would result 
in a negative allocation to the Finance Committee in 2009 through 2013. 
More specifically, the committee's allocation for these years would be 
negative $22 billion. That's minus $22 billion. Quite a deficit to 
overcome, and those savings would be difficult to find.
  Those of us who were here when the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 passed 
recognize full well that these savings would come from Medicare. An 
estimated 90 percent of the savings passed by the Finance Committee in 
the 1997 law came from the Medicare Program, through reductions in 
payments to providers.
  I would hesitate to cut the program a year before the baby boom 
generation starts to retire to finance a tax cut that we pass in 2003. 
Providers are currently facing severe reductions in Medicaid payments. 
They are coping with an uninsured rate that continues to climb, which 
means that they must shoulder an increasing burden of uncompensated 
care. These problems may worsen by the time these cuts take effect. 
They may also improve. But we cannot know for sure. And looking at the 
current state of our health care system, I am simply not prepared to 
take the chance that providers can sustain these cuts.
  Mr. President, let me reiterate that I support estate tax repeal, and 
I will continue to support thoughtful and responsible changes to tax 
policy. But I cannot support this amendment at this time.

                          ____________________