    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 35 (Monday, September 4, 2000)]
    [Pages 1981-1985]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Remarks on Returning Without Approval to the House of Representatives
    the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000

    August 31, 2000

        Thank you very much. I want to thank Secretary Mineta and John
    Sumption and his wife, Margaret, for being here. Martin Rothenberg,
    thank you very much, and thank you, Sandra, for being here.
        I was listening to them talk, wishing I didn't have to say a word.
    [Laughter] It made me proud to be an American, listening to those two
    people talk. Didn't they do a good job? [Applause]

    Western Wildfires

        Before I begin with the remarks I have on the estate tax, and since
    this is my only opportunity to speak to the American people through our
    friends in the press today, I need to make a statement about continuing
    efforts to combat one of the worst wildfire seasons in the history of
    America.
        For months now, we have been marshaling Federal resources so that
    the men and women fighting these blazes out West will have the tools
    they need to protect our public and our lands. There are already 30,000
    Federal, State, and local personnel engaged in the effort to fight the
    wildfires, including four full military battalions. Today I'm releasing
    another $90 million to ensure that the Federal firefighters have the
    resources they need. Now a total of $590 million has been spent on
    emergency funding to combat these fires. I want you to remember that for
    a point I want to make later in my remarks. These things happen.
        There will be no shortage of human effort. Tomorrow we are
    dispatching a new marine battalion from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to
    help fight the Clear Creek fire in Idaho's Salmon-Challis National
    Forest. Last night we issued a disaster declaration for Montana and are
    expediting a similar request from Idaho.
        There is a lot to be done out there. Those people are working hard.
    The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior have begun to move 2,000
    Federal supervisors into the field to assist the firefighters and to get
    adequate compensation for people that are working long and very
    stressful hours.
        Our Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to the firefighters, the
    managers, and their loved ones who are making extraordinary sacrifices.
    Many of them are literally risking their lives today in service to their
    neighbors and their country. Our losses this year in wildfires have been
    much, much, much greater than the 10-year average.
        And I was out in Idaho recently, and I wish every American could see
    what they try to do with those fires and how fast they can move and how
    they can go from being a foot high to 100 feet high in no time at all.
    So we may have to do more out there, but they're doing their best to
    protect as much

    [[Page 1982]]

    land and to protect the houses and lives of the people as possible.

    Estate Tax Legislation Veto

        Now, to the matter at hand. As Secretary Mineta said, 7\1/2\ years
    ago we charted a course for a new economy, a new course focused on
    giving the American people the tools they needed to make the most of the
    information age and creating the conditions which would make sure that
    the hard work of our people would be rewarded. And we all know that
    since then, we've had the longest economic expansion in history, that we
    have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, the lowest welfare rolls
    in 32 years; we learned last week, the lowest violent crime rate in 28
    years; and the highest homeownership in history.
        We also had these horrible deficits and a debt which had quadrupled
    in the 12 years I took office, over the previous 200 years, and we've
    begun to pay it down at a record rate. This has effectively worked as a
    tax cut. Why? Because all the economic analyses show that when we went
    from record deficits to record surpluses and started paying the debt
    down, it's kept interest rates lower over these last 8 years, much lower
    than they otherwise would have been.
        What has that been worth in tax cuts? Well, the Council of Economic
    Advisers says that on average it's worth $2,000 in lower home mortgages
    a year for the average home, $200 a year in lower car payments, $200 a
    year in lower student loan payments.
        We have also supported tax cuts within the context of paying the
    debt down. For example, in the Balanced Budget Act, we had the HOPE
    scholarship tax credit and lifelong learning tax credits: the HOPE
    scholarship for the first 2 years of college, $1,500; and the lifelong
    learning credits for the junior and senior year and lifetime education,
    which can be even greater. Ten million families are taking advantage of
    that to pay for a college education this year.
        The earned-income tax credit, which we doubled, which goes to lower
    income working people, will help $15 million families this year work
    their way into the middle class. The $500 child tax credit, which was a
    part of the Balanced Budget Act, will now go to 25 million families. We
    gave upper income people tax credits to invest in poor areas in America
    in the empowerment zones, and it's worked to generate thousands of jobs
    in some of the most distressed areas of the country.
        In 1997 we also reduced the burden of the estate tax for small-
    business owners and family farmers by raising the threshold at which it
    applies. The typical American family today is paying a lower share of
    its income in Federal income taxes than at any time during the last 35
    years. That is a pretty good thing to be able to say, and yet we're
    healthy financially because we have proceeded in a balanced and
    disciplined way.
        Now, everybody knows there is a lot more hard work to be done, and
    there are differences of opinion about what we ought to do and how we
    ought to do it. That's why we're having another election this year. And
    that's up to the American people to decide.
        But I believe that prosperity imposes its own difficult choices,
    because there are so many temptations to do things that seem easy that
    will have adverse consequences. And I believe it is our job to maximize
    the chance that America can make the most of a truly unique moment in
    our history to meet the big challenges that are out there: giving all of
    our kids a world-class education; making sure, when the baby boomers all
    retire and there are only two people working for every one person
    drawing Social Security and Medicare, that Social Security and Medicare
    don't go broke, and we don't bankrupt our kids or their ability to raise
    our grandkids; that we meet the big challenge of climate change and the
    other environmental challenges; that we stay on the forefront of science
    and technology; that we continue to be a force for peace and freedom
    around the world; that we bring prosperity to the people in America who
    still aren't part of it and give them a chance to work their way into a
    good life; and many other things.
        Now, in order to do that, a precondition of doing all that is
    keeping the prosperity going and continuing to expand opportunity. I
    believe that the only way to do that is to build on what has worked.
    It's not as if we haven't had a test run here. We've seen now for almost
    8 years that the strategy we have

    [[Page 1983]]

    pursued of investing in our people but continuing to pay this debt down
    and doing it within the framework of fiscal responsibility and trying to
    be fair in the way we invest money and allocate tax cuts works. It
    works. It's good economics, and it's good social policy.
        Now, I believe that this latest estate tax bill is another example
    where Congress comes up with something that sounds good and looks real
    good coming down the street on a tractor. [Laughter] But if you look at
    the merits, it basically would take us off the path that has brought us
    to this point over the last 8 years, and I don't think we ought to be
    kicked off that path. I think we ought to think about how to accelerate
    our way down this road.
        I believe that this latest bill, this estate tax bill is part of a
    series of actions and commitments that, when you add it all up, would
    take us back to the bad old days of deficits, high interest rates, and
    having no money to invest in our common future, the kind of things that
    our speakers talked about in their commitment to education.
        Now, let me give you an example. Last year the Republicans passed a
    huge tax bill in one quick shot, and it was like a cannonball that was
    too heavy to fly, and so it went away. But they're still committed to
    it--in fact, an even bigger version of the bill that I vetoed last year.
    This year they have a strategy that, in a way, is more clever. It's like
    a snowball, and every piece of it sounds good. But when it keeps
    rolling, it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And unless someone
    stops it, the snowball will turn into an avalanche, and you'll have the
    same impact you had before.
        Today, a few moments ago, this bill suffered the inevitable fate of
    a snowball in August. [Laughter] I vetoed it not because I don't think
    there should be any estate tax changes--I do believe there should be
    some changes--not because I think that the United States Government
    should never respond to the legitimate concerns of people who happen to
    be in upper income levels and have been successful--I think they're
    entitled to fairness just like all the rest of us--but because this
    particular bill is wrong for our families and wrong for our future. It
    fails the test of the future both on grounds of fairness and fiscal
    responsibility. And I'd just like to lay out the facts in a little
    greater detail.
        The cost of their bill is $100 billion over 10 years. That sounds--
    in the context of a $2 trillion surplus you may say, well, that's not
    all that much. But to get it down to $100 trillion, they have to ever so
    gradually phase it in. In the second 10 years, when all the baby boomers
    retire and we need as much money as we can for Social Security and
    Medicare and to keep the burden of the baby boomers' retirement off the
    rest of you, the real cost of the bill appears. It's $750 billion.
        Now, this is $750 billion for 54,000 families, 54,000 estates. We'll
    come back to the smaller number, $100 billion for 54,000 estates. That's
    2 percent of the estates. Now, if it's a farm or a small business, that
    can be misleading because they may employ lots and lots of people. There
    may be a lot of people riding on the welfare of, the success of the
    small business people and the farms.
        And I've talked to a number of people who say, ``You know, I don't
    want to have to sell my business,'' or ``I don't want my daughter or my
    son to have to sell the business to pay the estate tax. Yes, they'll
    still have money, but the business won't be going. Somebody else will be
    running the business.'' So, should something be done to help them? Of
    course. But keep in mind, there are millions of businesses in America--
    we're talking about 54,000 here--and it's very important to note that
    over half of the benefits to these 54,000 estates go to less than 6
    percent of the estates, less than one-tenth of one percent of the
    American people, 3,000 of the estates. So over half the benefit of that
    bill that came down here on a tractor goes to 3,000 people. And I'll bet
    you not a single one of them ever drove a tractor. [Laughter] I'll bet
    you if I had a tractor-driving contest with any of those 3,000 people, I
    would win. [Laughter]
        And I say that not to build resentment against them but to say they
    have presented a picture of this bill which is not accurate. The average
    tax relief for those 3,000 families would be $7 million a person. And it
    will do nothing for the farm families like those represented by our
    speaker. That is my problem with this bill. It doesn't really do what it
    says it's supposed to do.

    [[Page 1984]]

        And for the other 98 percent of the American people, literally get
    nothing out of this. That's another thing I think that is important.
    This was the first priority. This is the bill that was sent up before an
    increase in the earned-income tax credit for low income working people
    that have three or more kids, before doing more on the child care tax
    credit, before a long-term care credit for people who have to take care
    of their elderly or disabled loved ones and long-term care, before doing
    anything to help average families deduct the cost of college tuition to
    send their kids to college, before increasing the incentives we want to
    give wealthy people to invest in the poor areas of America. This was
    their top priority.
        So I say, it fails on grounds of fiscal responsibility; it costs too
    much; and it fails on grounds of fairness. And let me just mention
    something else that Martin alluded to when he stood up here. I have had
    at least two billionaires contact me and ask me to veto this bill. And
    one of the reasons they cited is that it would lead to a dramatic drop
    in charitable contributions.
        Studies show that charitable contributions could drop as much as $5
    to 6 billion a year--private contributions to charitable causes--if I
    were to sign this complete repeal: less money for AIDS research or
    cancer studies, fewer resources for adoption, fewer opportunities for
    troubled children, fewer new acquisitions for art galleries and
    historical museums and historic preservation. This is an element of this
    bill that has been discussed almost not at all in the public domain. But
    it is clear that it would be one of the unintended consequences of a
    complete repeal of the estate tax.
        I say again, the estate tax repeal is part of a larger Republican
    strategy to have, now, over $2 trillion of tax cuts over the next 10
    years. Now, in other words, their aggregate proposals would spend all
    the projected non-Social Security tax cut. That leaves nothing for
    continued improvements of education when the student bodies are just
    getting larger, more and more kids, and more and more diverse.
        Nothing for a voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit, the
    biggest problem most seniors have. Nothing to extend the life of
    Medicare and Social Security beyond the baby boom generation.
        Nothing to invest in scientific research and the environment.
        Nothing to pay for their proposal to partially privatize Social
    Security, which itself would require the injection of a trillion dollars
    more into the Social Security Trust Fund over the next decade.
        Nothing for emergencies. Remember, I told you we've already spent
    $600 million this year on wildfires in the West. Things happen in life.
    Things happen in a nation's life just like they happen in your life.
    Emergencies happen.
        Nothing to pay for low farm prices, bad crop years, or in this case,
    bad foreign policy, and no telling how many billion dollars we spent in
    the last 3 years trying to keep people like our family farmer here in
    business because we passed the farm bill in 1995 that made no provision
    for bad years.
        And by the way, the $2 trillion surplus is just an estimate, anyway.
    And anybody that knows anything about the Federal budget will tell you
    that there are just three or four technical reasons it is grossly
    overestimated.
        So I don't think this is a fiscally responsible bill, and I don't
    think it is a fair bill. And therefore, I vetoed it. Now, does it mean
    there should be no estate tax relief? Actually, most of us Democrats
    believe there should be some. Why? Because of the success of the economy
    in recent years, we've had land values go way up for farmers in many
    places in the country, and many young people and not-so-young people
    have enjoyed a lot of success in a hurry in a booming stock market. So
    that there are a lot of ongoing enterprises that should be able to
    continue to go on, and you don't want them to have to be transferred in
    ownership just to pay the tax bill. That's really the unfairness issue
    that needs to be addressed here.
        And we offered two different options to do that in this debate. Both
    of the Democratic bills in the House and the Senate would allow family
    farmers and small businesses to leave at least $4 million per couple
    without paying any estate tax. That's up from $1 million, where we're
    going today.

    [[Page 1985]]

        Unlike the Republican plan, which would make them wait 10 years to
    get the full benefits, so as to disguise the real cost of a total repeal
    of the estate tax, the Democratic plans provide immediate relief. The
    Democratic proposal in the Senate actually eliminated two-thirds of the
    families from paying the estate tax, covering virtually every so-called
    small business and family farm in the country, and leaving the people
    that Martin talked about, for which the estate tax was designed. The
    House plan left a few more families in the estate tax, but cut the rate
    for everybody, on the grounds that other rates had been cut in recent
    years.
        The point I want to make is that our party is not against reasonable
    estate tax relief, nor do we think that people should use all claim for
    making a fairness case to their government just because they're in upper
    income levels. But this bill is wrong. It is wrong on grounds of
    fairness; it is wrong on grounds of fiscal responsibility. It shows a
    sense of priorities that I believe got us in trouble in the first place
    in the 1980's and that, if we go back to those priorities, will get us
    in trouble again.
        So I say again to our friends in the Republican Party, John Sumption
    and Martin Rothenberg made a lot of sense today. They spoke for the best
    of America. We are not against wealth, and we are not against
    opportunity. If I were against creating millionaires, I have been an
    abject failure in my 8 years as President. [Laughter] We are not against
    making it possible for farmers and small business people to pass their
    operations along so that their children do not have to sell the
    enterprise just to pay the estate tax. Everybody thinks that's wrong.
        We are willing to work with you in good faith to modify this estate
    tax and to take a whole lot of people, including the majority of those
    now paying it, out from under it entirely if you're willing to work with
    us. But we are not willing to turn our backs on the rest of the American
    people who deserve tax relief, who have to have good schools, who have
    to have good health care, and most important of all, have to have a
    fiscal policy that keeps us paying the debt down, keeps interest rates
    low, and keeps the future bright.
        And I will just leave you with this one last thought. We have a new
    study which shows that if we keep on our path and keep paying this debt
    down, instead of giving away all the projected surplus in tax cuts, it
    will keep interest rates another percent a year lower for the next
    decade, which is worth another $250 billion home mortgages, another $30
    billion in car payments, and another $15 billion in college loan
    payments. That is a very big amount of relief to most people in this
    country.
        So I ask the Republican Congress again, if you're serious about
    wanting to deal with the problems that estate tax presents, let's get
    after it and solve them. But we have to proceed on grounds of fiscal
    responsibility and fairness. And I will never be able to thank this fine
    farmer from South Dakota and this successful academic and businessman
    now from New York for giving us a picture of what America is really all
    about and what we ought to be building on for the new century.
        Thank you very much.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:39 p.m. in the East Room at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to farmowner John Sumption and his
    wife, Margaret; and Martin Rothenberg, founder, Glottal Enterprises, and
    his daughter, Sandra.