Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003.

The bill before us has been cosponsored by over 200 Members of the House from both sides of the aisle. This approach is simple. It makes elimination of the death tax permanent. Although the bill is only one short sentence, it will have a powerful impact on the millions of people we represent.

Two years ago, Congress voted to phase out and repeal the death tax. Due to the Byrd rule, however, the tax will come back in full force January 1, 2011, imposing a maximum tax of 55 percent on estates. In the last Congress, a majority of the House voted on three occasions to remove this sunset in the law and make repeal permanent. We are here today to complete this unfinished business.

I have no doubt we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from those who want to keep the death tax alive. Repeal only helps the wealthy, they will say. It will reduce charitable giving; it will increase the deficit; it will jeopardize Social Security. Time and again these arguments have been raised. The simple truth is none of them holds water.

Does repeal of the death tax help only the wealthy? The Joint Economic Committee in 1998 underscored how repeal of the death tax will help minority-owned businesses. Both the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce support repeal of the death tax.

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in 2001 that ``elimination of the estate tax will help close the wealth gap in this Nation between African American families and white families.''

Supporters of the estate tax say that it does not really affect rural communities or farmers. Mr. Speaker, I represent rural communities and timber landowners. Earlier this year experts at the United States Forest Service published findings on just how devastating the tax affected rural communities.

Over a 10-year period, 36 percent of forest estates owed the Federal estate tax. In 40 percent of the cases where a Federal estate tax was due, timber or land had to bo sold to pay part or all of that tax. The amount of forest land harvested to pay the Federal estate tax was approximately 2.6 million acres every year. Forest land sold was nearly 1.3 million acres per year; and roughly 29 percent of the land sold was developed, or it was turned into subdivisions or converted to other uses.

Supporters of the tax say just lift the exemption amount, but that does not solve the problem. As inflation erodes the value of the exemption level, it will just mean more acres will be sold or harvested or developed. This is not the answer.

They say repeal of the estate tax will reduce charitable giving. In ``The CPA Journal'' of August 2001, Arthur Schmidt said, ``Philanthropy will likely increase as a result of the repeal of the estate tax, both at death because of the greater net resources available, or during the lifetime of the taxpayer as a result of the remaining tax efficiency of the charitable income tax deduction. In either case, the net present value of philanthropy will likely increase.''

Does the estate tax really promote charitable giving? IRS statistics show that in four out of five cases of taxable estates no bequest is made. No bequest is made in four out of five cases.

Would estate tax repeal jeopardize Social Security benefits? Federal receipts as a result of the death tax represent less than 1.5 of all total revenues. None of that money goes to Social Security for the trust funds, and eliminating the tax will in no way affect Social Security benefits, not one bit.

The death tax does not prevent accumulation of wealth. It does not promote charitable giving. It does not lead to increased economic growth. It is not a tax on sin. It is a tax on virtuous activities like savings and investment, activities we should be encouraging.

It increases the cost of capital for small businesses. It affects rural communities. It imposes financial burdens on minority businessmen and -women. In sum, the case for the death tax has been made, and it has been over and over again in this House thoroughly rejected.

Woodrow Wilson signed the death tax into law in 1916, and the time has come to get rid of it for once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 8 and opposing the substitute amendment and providing small businessmen and -women, family farmers and minorities with the capital they will need to expand, to create jobs and grow the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to remind the gentleman from California, whose State is in very financial straits, that in the year 2002 his State and estates in that State sent to the Federal Government $4,201,408. Actually that is $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government, which I am sure his State could have made use of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a great member of the Committee on Ways and Means and very much in touch with his constituents on repealing the death tax.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think the gentleman has created not just a near miss, but a big, big miss when we speaks about family farms. Families own 99 percent of the Nation's farms and ranches, and they are capital intensive businesses. Their assets are not liquid, and so for that reason they are very much at risk at having to pay very large estate taxes. Nearly 20 percent of farmers have paid Federal estate taxes in the previous 5 years. Seventy-seven percent of farmers report that they spent money each year on estate planning.

Not only are we hitting the family farms and the people who are employed by them, but we are also wasting dollars that go into this economy not for the purpose of stimulating this economy, but to pay for life insurance policies, estate planning, and everything else that is there when there is unpredictability and they need to provide for the future of their business and the business that employs so many people throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a very strong member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been close to his folks at home on this issue and who has done a great job for us on codifying the issue in the State of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that we did vote three times on this legislation last year in different forms; and, in fact, the legislation passed each of the times by a bipartisan majority. It also passed in the other body by a bipartisan majority. But, unfortunately, because of their strange rule system, it required a 60-vote margin to pass in that body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a very prominent member of our sophomore class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to remind the gentleman from California that his State, in the year 2002, sent $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government. And you can about double that for the cost of complying with the death tax. That is what comes out of the economy. And so his figure of $80 billion, just take that and double it and that is what has been taken out of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a wonderful contributing sophomore Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Policy Committee, a cosponsor of this bill, and a longtime supporter and leader on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that his State in the year 2001 sent back $578 million to Washington, D.C., with about an equal amount for compliance with that law. Also as a representative of a forested district, 36 percent of forest estates owe the Federal estate tax, 29 percent of the land was sold or developed or converted to subdivisions, and 1.3 million acres per year of forestland in this Nation were sold. The amount harvested to pay the estate tax was about 2.6 million acres every single year. I respect his point of view on this particular bill, but I think that there are many people who will be affected if he does not vote for this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

As the gentleman knows, retaking my time, I have already cosponsored that measure and supported it in the committee. We have worked very hard on that and will continue to do so. It affects a number of States. It is important to get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), a very active member of the freshman class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a great member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), freshman member of our class who has been one of the most active on the repeal of the death taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has been with us from the beginning, who is a strong advocate and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I want my colleagues to look at it very closely and be very clear about what this amendment would do. It establishes a permanent death tax. It is a huge tax increase on small business and family farms.

This amendment would increase taxes on farmers, on timber growers, on small businessmen and small business women, and it would not only take money from their pockets and send it to Washington, D.C.; it would practically force them to take more money from their pockets to pay lawyers, insurance salesmen, and estate planners. And why? So they will not have to send their money to Washington, D.C. to comply with this permanent death tax.

There are people who think this is a good thing. I do not understand it; I do not question their intent, I simply acknowledge that that is the case.

We have already debated the issue surrounding the death tax, but let us look closely at the impact of this amendment, because I think it puts on display the philosophy of those who want to keep the death tax.

Under current law, the tax rate for estates is due to fall in 2004, in 2005, 2006, and 2007. For 2 years, the rate would remain at 45 percent and then be totally repealed in 2010. This amendment eviscerates that tax relief.

Some estates may benefit under this amendment. If you are unlucky enough that your business is not doing well and you fall below the $3 million threshold that is in this amendment, you benefit. But what this amendment tells you is this: do not be successful. Do not save your money. Do not invest your money. Do not grow your business.

Instead, it encourages you to spend it now, sit back, consume that estate, because the government is going to take half of that estate anyway, and everybody knows how wisely the government spends our money. Because the more successful you are and the harder and the more you work, the more expensive it will be for you to hand that business on to your children.

Does the amendment promote charitable giving? No, it does not. Does it redistribute the money it raises to those who are less wealthy? No, it does not. Does it equalize income among different layers of society? No, it does not do that. Does it help pay Social Security benefits? No.

Opponents of death tax repeal make all of those charges, but when they bring forth their own proposal, we can see it for what it really is: a tax increase, pure and simple. A way to put money in the pockets of the Federal Government. And because the exemption level is not indexed, there will be free money to the Treasury. Inflation grows, but the exemption stays just the same. As the economy improves, as businesses grow, as people invest and work hard, they will be penalized, because someone in Washington, D.C. said you can only be so successful, an arbitrary limit, and then you pay.

That is what this amendment is about and that is why it ought to be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again the arguments of those who want to keep the death tax. We hear about equality, about Social Security, about charitable giving, about enormous concentrations of wealth. But when it comes right down to it, it is about money.

Mr. Speaker, this approach is the wrong approach. This policy has outlived its day. This philosophy is not what made our Nation great, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who knows what he is talking about because he has been through it personally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for the purposes of control, a gentleman who has been very involved in the development of our legislation and very much a supporter of it as he has come to Congress as a freshman Member. He will present differing points of views from people who come from all over the country who are members of the freshman class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points in response to things I heard during the debate, and I appreciate the participation of the freshmen Members of Congress. Their viewpoint is very energetic and fresh. It is very valuable to hear what they have to say.

There has been mention in the past of the National Farmers Union, and I want to assure people listening to this debate that the American Farm Bureau, which has 5 million members, supports permanent repeal of the death tax, as do the Agricultural Retailers Association, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Society of Farm Managers, the Rural Appraisers, the American Soybean Association, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Farm Credit Bureau. I could go on and on. There is a list of 25 organizations here that support the permanent repeal of the death tax.

Why is that? The reason is they want predictability. One of the previous speakers talked about unpredictability because the act will not go into effect until 2010, 7 years from now. These farmers support permanent repeal because they do not want to have to bet on the fact that their farm will be within $3 million, which is the limit in the Pomeroy amendment. We hear talk about $6 million, and that is for two members of a family. They do not want to put those dollars into providing for estate planning and purchasing life insurance policies so liquidity will be there when the time comes that they are taken from this vale of tears and their children have to pay for the inheritance of their estate. They want to use those dollars and put that capital into their businesses and farms and into their equipment and land and into the employment of many, many people who will lose their jobs once farms close down.

Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker who would like to speak about the death tax. He is a long-time Member and very active in this debate through the years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think Members have a good idea of what we are going through here today. We have been through this issue before. Each time I am very happy to say that the House of Representatives has stood up to get rid of the death tax repeal permanently. Three times in the last Congress the House voted to repeal the death tax. We are here today only for one reason and that is that the rules of the other body have stymied this tax relief for small business people and for family farms.

Some of my colleagues would say we should throw in the towel. They say the Senate will never pass this legislation, so why not compromise? Why even take up the permanent repeal piece of legislation? That is the statement made by the Pomeroy substitute. We faced similar arguments not very long ago when we considered an economic growth package, but the House did not throw in the towel and the legislation that is now law reflects to a very deep degree the policy decisions that were written right here on the floor of this House of Representatives. Thanks to the tenacity and the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the will of the House prevailed. Frankly, I am very optimistic that we will ultimately prevail on permanently repealing the death tax.

I hope Members will not be swayed by the rhetoric and the hyperbole on the other side because we have heard lots of it today. On this issue, the opposition rhetoric and reality have very little in common. Why should Members vote against this amendment? Let me tell you why. Number one, it will be a retreat from the tax relief this body voted 2 years ago. In fact, it would reinstate a permanent death tax. Number two, we need to permanently repeal the death tax so that small businesses and family farmers can plan their future and invest in their businesses. We do not need to make them spend the fruits of their labor on estate lawyers and accountants and insurance policies. Number three, this is a direct vote against the President's proposal to repeal this tax permanently and that is based on 80 percent of the American people who think that the death tax is an unfair tax.

We need to inject greater fairness into the Tax Code. Do not be swayed by the arguments of those who say this is about a tax break for the wealthy. This is a relief from a burden that takes money from middle-income people who run their small businesses and their family farms. The wealthy people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to avoid the burden of the estate tax. This is not about charitable giving and it is not about the wealthy. It is about people who are trying to raise money for the Federal Treasury and using an abhorrently unfair, misguided tax to do that. When people argue in favor of keeping the death tax, I am reminded of a story about Samuel Johnson, the English literary critic. An acquaintance of Johnson's had been unhappily married for a long time, and when the man's wife died he almost immediately remarried. Dr. Johnson said, ``That's an example of the triumph of hope over experience.'' That is what this is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about people who are wedded to misguided hope over experience.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough experience with the death tax, nearly 90 years worth since 1916, and that is why we should reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, and my colleague and neighbor, from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 281 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003, legislation to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. The rule makes in order 1 hour of debate, a minority substitute, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is certainly not a new one. In the 106th session, Congress voted several times in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate the death tax. In the 107th session, Congress voted on three separate occasions to eliminate the death tax; but with the death tax relief set to expire in 2011, we might give Dr. Kevorkian a new career as a tax and estate planner.

Today, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax once and for all.

By way of history, this tax was initially imposed to prevent the very wealthy from passing on their wealth from one generation to the next. At the time, this well-intentioned tax eased concerns about the growing concentration of money and power among a small number of wealthy families. Later, it was used to fund national emergencies, and it became necessary to maintain these high tax rates in high wartime levels during the 1930s and the 1940s, but they remained relatively unchanged until the Tax Reform Act of 1976.

Ironically, the death tax served little of the purpose for which it was intended. Rather than prevent the concentrated accumulation of vast wealth, the death tax punished savings and thrift and hard work among American families. Small businesses and farmers have been unfairly penalized for their blood, sweat and tears, paying taxes on already- taxed assets.

Instead of investing money on productive measures such as creating new jobs or purchasing new equipment, businesses and farms are forced to divert their earnings to tax accountants and lawyers just to prepare their estates.

The victims of the death tax are typically hardworking Americans of medium-sized estates, farmers and small business owners. Their enterprises create jobs and growth and opportunities for our communities, but every year those families were literally forced to sell the family farm or business just to pay off their death taxes.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the death tax actually raises relatively little revenue for the Federal Government. Some studies have found that it may cost the government and taxpayers more in administrative and compliance fees than it actually raises in revenue.

Of course, farmers and ranchers are not the only ones facing an unfair and unnecessary burden in the death tax. One study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of New York State found that in a 5-year period family-owned and -operated businesses on an average spent $125,000 per company on tax planning alone. These costs are incurred prior to any actual payment of Federal estate taxes. They reported that an estimated 14 jobs per business were lost as a result of Federal estate tax planning. For just the 365 businesses surveyed, the total number of jobs already lost due to the Federal estate tax is 5,100. That was just in upstate New York.

My rural and suburban district in New York is laden with small businesses and farms that are owned by hardworking families who pay their taxes, create jobs, and contribute not only to the quality of life in their community but to the Nation's rich heritage. Is it so much to ask that they be able to pass on their industry and hard work, their small business or their farm to their children? Why should Uncle Sam become the Grim Reaper?

The fact is they paid their taxes in life on every acre sown, on every product sold, and on every dollar earned. They should not be taxed in death, too.

Mr. Speaker, death tax relief was a good idea in the 107th Congress, and it is a good idea now. We should not provide this kind of relief for only a few years. We should provide it permanently. This kind of permanent tax relief for farmers, ranchers, and small business owners that will keep the family business growing and growing is just the kind of relief that is beginning to get this economy moving.

Wall Street has shown modest gains not only since Congress passed its tax cut plan but even since we began working on the tax cut itself. As one media report said, ``Economic advisers credit the tax cuts and positive first quarter earnings for the gains.''

Tax cuts work. They work in helping hardworking families keep more of what they earn. They work in allowing people to have greater control over decisions to save and invest, and they work in creating jobs and creating greater economic opportunity for American families. We are on the right course. Let us keep moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bury this unfair tax once and for all. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my friends from the left always bring up class warfare every time we have a tax cut discussion in this body. I just would point to two aspects of my colleague and friend's remarks.

First, Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell, who are two prominent liberal economists, concluded in their study of the estate tax the following: In short, the estate and gift taxes of the United States have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue, they impose large excess burdens, and they are unfair.

Alan Binder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, found that only about 2 percent of inequity was attributable to the unequal distribution of inherited wealth.

Joseph Stiglitz, who served as Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, found that the estate tax may ultimately increase income equality.

Those are the same type of things that Republicans or conservatives or economists who are right of center have said. So there seems to be concurrence on that.

I would also say that it is sometimes difficult being a member of the majority to resolve some of the issues of inside baseball upstairs in the Committee on Rules. Sometimes we are attacked because we have open rules, sometimes we are attacked because we have closed rules, modified rules, or whatever happens. In this instance, we just cannot seem to win.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that we have today for our colleagues to consider, in the rule that we now have before us, a substitute offered by the Democrats. If the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) does not want this substitute, he should withdraw it. He introduced it, he asked the Committee on Rules to consider it, the Committee on Rules did just that.

We also have a recommit, as we have in each and every single rule that we put out on behalf of consideration of legislation since the majority took its control in 1995.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, though it is unfortunate, as a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman cannot get time from his side.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) came before the Committee on Rules and he introduced his legislation. There is no time I am aware of, in talking to the staff, that the gentleman from North Dakota, from the time he brought the legislation for our consideration until today, that he has asked to withdraw the substitute.

So we are moving forward on the Pomeroy substitute. After that is considered, we will move forward with the motion to recommit and then we will, hopefully, go to final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As President Reagan would say, Mr. Speaker, there you go again. Class warfare. I do not know about my colleagues, but I go home every weekend, and I see farmers, and I see small businesses that have worked their hearts out. They have worked hard their whole life on their family farm or in their Main Street business. They are not rich, but they have an estate. They want to pass it to whoever they want. In most instances, that is their children. But to pay the estate tax, they have to sell the family farm. And that just is not right, because they paid taxes on every single portion of the products, goods, and services and then they have to do it again at death tax time.

They are not rich, although this would certainly help them, but as I cited in earlier debate, liberal economists and conservative economists all agree the tax does not really do the job. But think about this: The actuaries and life underwriters and everybody else are saying, if you want to die, you want to do it between now and 2010, because God forbid, if it is January 1, 2011. This thing does not work anymore.

It is a reasonable thing to tell America and to show America and perform for America with permanent death tax relief. This tax relief is reasonable. I understand my colleagues on the left do not believe in tax cuts. I accept that. But I also want to remind my colleagues and friends, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has indicated, in the Committee on Rules every single amendment had a rollcall vote yesterday. They were all heard, they were all debated, and they all had a vote.

We have, in this modified closed rule, included the Pomeroy substitute, and we have included a motion to recommit. We will then have final passage of whatever comes as the result of our colleagues in the conference on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, apparently as I cited in my remarks before, some of that has not been heard as we get some of the facts out. The left does not want to cut taxes. I accept that. I understand that. We are going to have a debate; and this House has repeatedly cut taxes, including the estate tax in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, and now in the 108th Congress. But Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell, who are two prominent liberal economists, concluded in their study of the estate tax, the estate and gift taxes in the United States have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue, they impose large excess burdens, and they are unfair.

Alan Binder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board appointed by President Clinton, found that 2 percent of the equity was attributable to the unequal distribution of inherited wealth.

And Joseph Stiglitz, who served as President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, found the estate tax may ultimately increase income inequality. The reason I have cited that a second time in this debate is we can keep coming forward and say how bad it is. The liberal economists, just as we have seen from right-of-center economists, have concurred that this is not a functional tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the Senate will quickly respond to the legislation we passed last week, in a prompt response to the decision that they wanted to look at the child tax credit.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, I am a little confused. Last week the gentleman voted against the child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I enjoyed that oratory. I would almost think that she voted for the child tax credit last week, but the sad fact is that she did not because she voted the other way. She voted no. We sent a bill over to the other body. I have listened to the presumptions of the other body, of what will happen over there. I have

talked to a few Senators. They give me the hope that they are so desirous of voting on this that they are looking forward to a conference and they are looking forward to getting it on the floor.

The fact is we are talking about permanent estate tax repeal now. That is what is coming on the floor as we pass this rule, if the body does pass it, and I believe that they will and I believe that we will get bipartisan, Democrat-Republican, support for a permanent estate tax, death tax, however, you want to look at the reality, repeal. As we are listening to the debate shift over to the child tax credit, it is fine to lecture what that is and how it all happened.

The fact is last week I voted for a child tax credit and other tax cuts and sent it to the other body. And the fact is the last two orators on the Democratic side did not vote for it.

So as we move forward today back on the death tax to make a permanent death tax repeal, Members get to vote up or down on the rule and then they get to vote on a substitute and then they get to vote on a recommit and then final passage. I look forward to today, because I believe that we will get bipartisan support to pass the permanent repeal of the death tax.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

I guess she did not have a question.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I probably need to put the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) on notice that when we move into the bill on the underlying legislation, we will be talking more on the child tax credit than the permanent death tax. I am just encouraged to see in the 107th Congress, three votes that occurred on the death tax. I saw from 41 to 58 Democratic votes along with Republicans and it reassures me that we are on the path of a bipartisan tax cut to end the death tax once and for all that is in this country.

We need to see a couple of things. Individuals and families and partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches. Think about that. Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches. I do not want us to ever forget that every acre, every piece of equipment, every business has already been taxed in life, so why should they be taxed in death.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I welcome so many from the left to join me in cutting taxes. I look forward to that vote when it comes out of conference committee and maybe she can join us with that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have got to tell the Members, I have only been here since 1999, but it never ceases to amaze me to see something new. Yesterday my colleague from North Dakota was before the Committee on Rules advocating this substitute that is contained in this rule and another one, and he was granted one that he actually spoke for; and today he wants to bring down the rule.

I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman come before the Committee on Rules and advocate the substitute which is contained in the rule today? I think he did, did he not? Did he come and advocate two different amendments before the Committee on Rules, this one being made that was made as substitute inside the rule? Did he or did he not come yesterday before the Committee on Rules and submit testimony before us asking for consideration of this substitute?

I am happy to bring the record down and bring it here.

The gentleman and I both know that he was before the committee and asked for this amendment to be considered by the Committee on Rules and now he wants to bring it down. Is that true or not, sir?

Is the gentleman saying he was not in the Committee on Rules or that he did not request this substitute in his presentation before the Committee on Rules when he spoke on two specific amendments, this being one?

I will yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that in the Committee on Rules, we try to work with our side of the aisle to advise a Member if they do not want their amendment made in order, they should not offer it in the Committee on Rules. Maybe that does not happen to Members on the other side of the aisle; but on our side, if someone comes up there and asks for consideration of an amendment, they ought to be prepared that it might be granted.

I just want to go back and make sure we do not miss anything on the death tax inhibiting economic growth because I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about creating jobs. The threat of a resurrected death tax will force American families to make inefficient investment decisions and to waste resources in an effort to comply with the death tax. Studies show that repealing the death tax would create as many as 200,000 extra jobs each year across America. Jobs are lost when businesses are liquidated to pay death taxes and to make decisions not to expand because of anticipated death tax liabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I believe, looking up at the press gallery, that there is probably a view that it is a fair rule. It is a modified closed rule that provides a substitute, then a recommit; and then we move on to final passage. So there is not much controversy on the rule. And we are in a situation as we move forward on a debate that I believe once we get through the process, which is the rule vote, we are going to see in final passage, just looking at the 107th Congress, somewhere between 41 Democratic colleagues and 58 Democratic colleagues who voted for death tax in the past Congress that will join us today in a bipartisan message of passing this legislation out of the House and having it go to the other body.

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once noted in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes. But while death may be certain, taxes are immortal. That is because our current tax system plays a cruel joke on farmers and small business owners. Simply put, the death tax stifles growth, discourages savings, stymies job creation, drains resources, and ruins family businesses. It is time we permanently repeal this unfair tax and allow the American Dream to be passed on to our children and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin consideration of the substitute, I would like us to focus on something pretty central to the fundamentals of legislating. We ought to do as a Congress that which we can do. The substitute I bring forward will take effect during the tenure of this Congress. It is effective January 1, 2004. The majority proposal before us does nothing during the sitting of this Congress, nothing during the sitting of the next Congress, the Congress after that, the Congress after that, the Congress after that, or the Congress after that. Nothing until January 1, 2011.

We have heard so much from the other side. We have heard so much about how they care about all the problems, how mean of us to oppose their addressing the problems. And yet now when it comes to the substitute, this is where the rubber meets the road because we want to do something now and something meaningful and they do nothing. Nothing about their bill.

Not one whit of their bill applies during the sitting of this Congress or until the year 2011.

Again, I referenced earlier the heart-wrenching examples we have heard from the majority about family farmers. Let us talk for a minute about family farmers. I know something about family farmers. In representing the State of North Dakota, I probably represent more production acreage than any other Members of this House. The family farmers who have estate tax problems, and I am happy to tell my colleagues most of them do not, but of those that do, let us get after it. Let us get them relief and get them relief now.

The substitute I have advanced would give family farm couples $6 million in exclusion from estate tax. Any farmer in operation up to $6 million, no estate taxes. One hundred percent repeal, effective January 1. That is very meaningful relief and it is going to go right to the heart of the farm families that they are talking about.

Now, what do they offer by way of an alternative, this Congress, for dealing with these farm families? Absolutely nothing. In 2004, under their proposal, family farm estates over $3 million will be subject to estate tax; over $3 million. Family farm estates per couple in our situation: $6 million. We provide double the relief immediately. And so really, what they are offering these people is a total sham, because under their proposal, nobody gets anything until the very wealthiest, a tiny number of estates in this country, are taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and that is especially true when we consider prospects that this year 2011 will actually offer the kind of relief that they proclaim so loudly. Five Congresses from now are going to be looking at a very different budget situation, because the cost of their proposal absolutely explodes in the very decade baby boomers retire.

Consider the chart here. Mr. Speaker, $162 billion of revenue loss in the first 10 years. It ramps up slowly, and then really clobbers you: A $500 million loss in '04; a $31 billion loss in the year 2011; $57 billion loss in 2012; $63 billion loss in 2013. You catch my drift. This thing explodes in its consequence in the budget. Mr. Speaker, $840 billion worth of revenue loss in the next decade, just as baby boomers retire and want their Medicare and want their Social Security.

Now, what do my colleagues think is likely? We are going to say, no, baby boomers, we have this estate tax we repealed some time ago, and we are going to stick with it. I do not think so. I think the prospects are overwhelming that this distant repeal will never arrive.

Finally, I think that it just makes it very, very clear what this is all about. To look at the relief we offer in each of the next 5 years being vastly superior to theirs, because they do not want, in any way, to lose some of the momentum behind total repeal. So they will leave family farmers in the lurch through the year 2011; they will leave the small businesses they talk about in

the lurch in the year 2011. Again, look at this: estates $6 million and under; no tax under our proposal in 2004; $3 million and under taxed under their proposal. In 2005, the same situation. Again, we are superior in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Now, if this Congress has before it the opportunity to give over each of the next 5 years meaningful relief to people that need it, why in the world do we not do it? That is exactly what this substitute is all about.

There is one final feature that I would discuss briefly; it is a feature that I was surprised to hear my friend, the gentlewoman from Washington, tout before the Committee on Rules yesterday, and that is, this notion of who is going to have capital gains tax on inherited property? Because under our proposal, when you inherit the property, the only capital gains tax on the appreciated value of that property you are going to have is between the time you inherited it and the time you sell it. Under their proposal, you are going to face capital gains taxes from the time it was purchased originally, whoever purchased it that ultimately bequeathed it to you in the inheritance.

And so in the family farm context, you have an awful lot of farmland coming into families in the 1930s, in the 1940s at just nominal value, which now has significant value. And when the heir goes to sell it, you are going to have capital gains on all capital appreciation over $1.3 million. We are going to have an awful lot of the family farmers that they are touting so much on this debate that right now do not have estate tax problems, and surely would not have estate tax problems under our bill, that are going to find themselves with walloping capital gains taxes, because they take this stepped up in basis and throw it out for carry-over so that they can help the wealthiest tiny few in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal in my substitute to take care of 99.65 percent of the estates in this country. My gosh, that is pretty darn close to perfect, 99.7. But they do not want that relief to move forward, because it is the three-tenths of 1 percent of their wealthiest benefactors that they are most worried about. Well, I say let us deal with this straight up, take what we can get now, provide meaningful relief effective in 2004, pass the Pomeroy substitute, and get this on the road toward exactly what we need: estate tax relief now for America's families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), assist in the management of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the preceding speakers each making their eloquent speeches on behalf of their family farm constituents, their small business constituents, will oppose the amendment that I have offered that will bring them meaningful relief right now, January 1, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, let me just go through the comparison. If a couple's estate is worth $6 million or less on January 1, 2004, no estate tax under our proposal. Under their proposal, these farms and small businesses with valuations in excess of over $3 million, they are going to have tax under their proposal in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. There is more relief under our proposal than their proposal.

If they want to protect these estates, they should pass the substitute today; and next year if they want to go ahead and try to pass the repeal, they can go ahead and try. There is no harm in that, take what you can get now and come back and take some more later. That is how we function in this Congress a lot. But they have done something quite different. They say nobody gets any relief until 2011 because at that time the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent get to participate fully in the relief as well.

If that is what this is about, let us talk about the three-tenths of 1 percent. But do not put this on family farms or small businesses; or as an earlier speaker said, this estate tax repeal is really about the guy pushing the broom. I do not know too many guys pushing brooms that have estate tax problems. It goes to show really the overblown rhetoric on the other side of the aisle unmatched by any reasonable effort to help now address the estate tax problems they speak so compellingly about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to speak for a moment on the question of where rural America is on my amendment. I believe if we ask the farmers of this country today, and I represent a whole lot of farmers in North Dakota, if they would take a proposition where they get $6 million per farm couple estate tax relief, no estate tax if their farm is $6 million or under, or no relief at all until 2011 under the majority proposal, leaving them with exposure over $3 million under their proposal as opposed to $6 million with our proposal, I would be interested in a show of hands on that one.

I have a strong feeling that most would support relief now. In addition to that, we are not used to the notion of capital gains on inherited estates, but I heard the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) talk about the new capital gains feature that is part of their proposal and that it is going to be a good thing because it means you are going to have to keep farming or running that small business because if you sell it, you are going to have capital gains exposure. I do not think that it is a good thing that we suddenly impose capital gains exposure on inherited assets. That is why the stepped-up basis feature of our bill is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader. I am so proud of her and so proud she joins the debate on my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that our leader was able to participate in the debate, and am pleased to have the participation of the Speaker of the House in closing for the majority, because I think the issue is of that importance.

The esteemed Speaker of the House, a gentleman I admire greatly, representing the State of Illinois, I reckon is going to tell us something about how we have to do this for family farmers and the small businesses of this country. I think that it is time that family farmers and small businesses have estate tax relief and that is why I have put forward this amendment which brings them estate tax relief effective January 1 of 2004. Again, let us put the rhetoric aside and just look at the facts.

In 2004, these families that they have been talking about, 3 million and over, estate tax liability attaches. A couple, in our side, 6 million liability of taxes. Meaningful relief now, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. We provide meaningful relief in each of those years beyond what the majority proposes.

I also expect that the Speaker of the House is going to talk a little bit about how we need to do this to get the economy moving again. Let us consider that one because something that takes effect in 2004 is much more related to getting the economy moving again than something that has no effect whatsoever until the year 2011. Consider this date, 2011, which, again, is the first time the majority proposal has any effect. That is five Congresses from now and into the third Presidential term from now. There is nothing we can do to bind action at that time, nothing in the world. We might kid ourselves about it, but what this Congress can do is attend to that in the here and now. That is why I believe it is time we move estate tax relief forward, do it in a meaningful way, do it in a way to provide couples 6 million and under complete freedom from ever having to worry about estate tax again, and if we attach at that number, we will address completely the estate tax concerns of 99.65 percent of the people in this country.

I do not know the definition of universal, but that is getting mighty darn close; and it beats by a mile, in my opinion, leaving people with the estate tax exposure they have until the year 2011.

Here is the danger that we will never get to 2011. This is the cost of the proposal the first 10 years; this is the cost in the next 10 years. I believe there is significant risk 2011 will never be allowed to occur under the majority bill. Let us get relief now. Please vote for my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, the previous gentleman who spoke indicated that the estate tax is immoral. Do Members know what is more immoral? Giving this tax relief to the wealthiest individuals in this country and passing it on through national debt to our children and our grandchildren.

The action we take today, which will cost over $800 billion in the next 10 years after fully effective, will be put on the national debt of the country to be paid back by our kids and grandkids. Boy, are we generous. Mr. Speaker, the only good thing about today's bill to repeal the estate tax for the billionaires of this country is that it is dead in the Senate, so all of the talk and debate today and the vote we will have later is for naught because the Senate is going to kill it. That is the good news. But let us see what we have done in this House and Congress over the last couple of years.

Last week we provided a tax cut of some $82 billion. The country is broke. We have a $400 billion deficit this year. The kids are going to pay that because that is part of the debt now. A month before that we passed another tax bill. This one totaled $350 billion, of which the wealthiest Americans would get about $92,000. The average taxpayer in my district would get about $400. We had no money for that one either. The real problem with that bill is once we total it up, that costs $1 trillion but that is a secret, so do not say anything. Quiet.

Now 2001 we passed another tax bill. How much did that one cost? That one cost $1.3 trillion. Again, the surplus is gone. The country is broke. We have a deficit. What the heck are we doing around here? When is this idiocy going to stop?

Today the estate tax has an exemption of $2 million. It covers everyone in my district. Well, we are going to have an option later today which would raise that to $7 million and that would take care of 99 percent of all small businesses and farmers in this country. But that is not good enough. That is

not good enough for the Republicans because that is not who they are trying to help. The people they are trying to help are the Hallmark Card people and the Mars candy bar people, who over the last couple of years have spent millions of dollars hiring lobbyists in D.C. and giving campaign contributions, and today they want their due.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Washington Post article of this morning by Jonathan Weisman entitled, ``Estate Tax Compromise Sought.'' What we are doing today is sheer nonsense.

Let me say to my Republican colleagues, we have already voted on this proposition three times; and under the campaign finance law if we vote for an item three times and it does not pass, you are still entitled to the campaign contribution, okay. So Members are still going to get the money from Hallmark and the campaign contributions from the Mars candy bar people; but for God's sake, save the taxpayers of this country.

[From the Washington Post, June 18, 2003]

Estate Tax Compromise Sought

House Set to Pass Repeal, but Supporters Know Senate Votes Aren't There

(By Jonathan Weisman)

When a coalition of wealthy families, small-business groups

and farm interests won temporary repeal of the estate tax two

years ago, they immediately resumed their campaign for

permanent repeal. Now, even as the House is expected to vote

today for just that, some in the alliance have second

thoughts.

It's not that they have backed off their vehement

opposition to the tax on large inheritances. Rather, as the

Federal budget deficit grows and their patriarchs and

matriarchs age, they are losing faith that permanent repeal

will ever happen and are considering compromises that were

unthinkable two years ago.

The House is expected to vote today to permanently repeal

the estate tax after 2010, when it is set to expire after

being in effect for only one year. But no one expects the

Senate to pass the bill, leading some proponents to believe

that the vote and the distant temporary repeal date are more

political gamesmanship than a serious legislative attack on

the tax.

So some of the affluent families who have bankrolled the

repeal movement are exploring estate tax changes short of

repeal that could be implemented sooner.

``There is some real concern that 2010 is not soon

enough,'' said a lobbyist working on the issue, referring to

the deficit and the uncomfortable fact that some affluent

benefactors may not live until 2010. Grover Connell of

privately held Connell Co., for example, is 85. The

matriarchs and patriarch of the Hallmark greeting-card

fortune are in their seventies.

For more than a decade, the coalition has rejected

overtures for compromise and declared it will accept nothing

short of ``death tax'' repeal.

The simplicity of their demand, the strength of the small-

business coalition and the money of the families financing

the effort combined to turn an obscure tax affecting very few

Americans into a powerful rallying point, especially for

Republicans.

The movement culminated in 2001 with the 10-year, $1.35

trillion tax cut, which repeals the estate tax in 2010. But

the tax is to return in 2011 when the entire tax cut expires.

For the past two years, the repeal coalition has tried, and

failed, to gather the 60 Senate votes needed to make the

repeal permanent. One lobbyist working on the estate tax said

the appeal of the issue may have ``plateaued.''

And just as the surging Federal budget deficit is beginning

to shake up the Bush administration's plans for more tax

cuts, it is starting to change the politics of estate tax

repeal. Repeal supporters worry that the growing deficit will

make it more difficult to eliminate the tax, particularly by

2010, when the vanguard of the baby boom will retire.

The Treasury Department said repeal of the estate tax in

2011 through 2013 would cost the government $115 billion in

revenue. In 2014 through 2023, repeal would cost about $820

billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities.

``The principal issue is the growing federal budget

deficit,'' said William Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft

Corp. founder, who opposes repeal of the estate tax. ``You

can't run a $400 billion deficit year after year and go

around repealing taxes at the same time.''

Even if Bush is reelected in 2004, a new president, who

could be far less friendly to repeal, will be elected in

2008. And the broad appeal of the anti-estate-tax movement

that caught fire in the 1990s may be dissipating simply

because people are not feeling so rich anymore, one lobbyist

said.

Even at the height of the stock market boom, the estate tax

affected very few families because estates worth up to a

certain amount are exempt. That amount is currently $1

million for a single person or as much as $2 million for a

couple. In 2000, the most recent year for which statistics

are available, more than 2.4 million adults died in the

United States, but only about 52,000 left taxable estates.

The strength of the repeal movement always came from

people's fear that their estates would be hit with a huge tax

bill. If that fear dissipates in a sluggish economy, so will

the movement, lobbyists said.

``I think some of [coalition members] are coming around to

`Let's get a common-sense solution that can work now instead

of just talking about this for eons,' '' said Sen. Blanche

Lincoln (D-Ark.), a past repeal supporter who is floating a

less expensive alternative.

With all those factors in mind, some of the biggest names

in the estate tax coalition are looking to compromise. The

candy-making Mars family of McLean gave more than $1 million

to lobbying powerhouse Patton Boggs LLP last year, in part to

explore ``estate and gift tax reform,'' according to lobbying

disclosure forms.

Koch Industries Inc., a family-run energy, ranching and

finance conglomerate, paid Hogan & Hartson LLP $40,000 last

year, while spending $500.000 on in-house lobbying on the

estate tax. The Connell Co. hired Washington Council Ernst &

Young for $120,000 to lobby for ``estate and income tax

relief,'' while Hallmark Cards Inc. spent $60,000 to hire

Capitol Tax Partners LLP.

Stephen Moore, a conservative tax-cutting activist with the

Club for Growth, and Mark A. Bloomfield, president of the

business-backed American Council for Capital Formation,

proposed taxing estates at the current capital gains rate of

15 percent. Taxable estates are subject to a 49 percent tax.

``There are Republicans who want this debate to last

forever, keep the [campaign] money flowing in, keep the

Democrats off guard,'' Moore said. ``Mark Bloomfield and I

have been on crusade to get this done, to break the logjam.''

If that proposal cannot be passed, another lobbyist

suggested taxing inheritances at income tax rates, which are

at most 35 percent. A stream of lobbyists has passed through

Lincoln's office to discuss her proposal to immediately

repeal the estate tax for family-owned businesses and farms.

The public faces of the repeal movement remain resolute.

``We are 100 percent united behind permanent repeal in

2010,'' said Patricia Soldano, a Southern California

financial planner who, in 1992, helped launch the repeal

movement with funding from the Mars family and the Gallo wine

heirs, among others.

Dena Battle, the National Federation of Independent

Business's lobbyist on the issue, conceded that the budget

deficit ``certainly changes the dynamics of the debate.''

``But,'' she said, ``you're talking about something that

takes place 10 years from now. There's no way we can know

what the economy is going to look like then. That's not an

excuse to vote against this.''

There is little doubt that the House will vote today to

repeal the tax, but lobbyists said they will look closely at

the tally. If past repeal supporters--especially Democrats--

vote against it this time, the fledgling movement toward

compromise will pick up steam quickly, a lobbyist for one of

the rich families predicted.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore