Timber Tax Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 885, I call up the bill (H.R. 5638) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000 and to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on June 16, the United States Senate majority leader put out the following statement asking for the House to send estate tax legislation to the Senate: ``I will ask the Speaker of the House to send a bill to us that would be a permanent solution to the death tax. I will encourage them to attach appropriate provisions to make it attractive and will hold a vote by July 4.'' This measure, H.R. 5638, is the response to the majority leader's request.

This House is on record with a bipartisan vote in favor of repealing the estate, or death, tax. But we know that the Senate on a procedural or cloture vote rejected that offer from the House by 57 votes in favor of moving forward, short of the 60 necessary.

I heard during the discussion on the rule the ranking minority member on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, say that this bill, H.R. 5638, will pass. I, too, in agreeing with her, believe that the bill will pass. It will be available to the Senate to take from the desk, and it will be then the Senate's decision to pass or defeat it.

I want to underscore the point, this is a response to the majority leader's request. This is not a first offer; it is the only offer to the majority leader's request that the chairman intends to offer.

This bill was crafted as a compromise. Compromises are supposed to be reasonable; but, most importantly, they are supposed to be doable. The goal of a compromise is to make law. H.R. 5638 is a compromise.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we might have expected, the gentleman from New York wheeled out all the usual arguments. I hope he didn't trip as he went back to his seat with the flag tightly wrapped around him in terms of his arguments of patriotism. The class warfare card was played; the rich card was played.

``This is for the richest of the rich,'' he said. I tell the gentleman from California, I will quote who know who the richest of the rich are. In today's Wall Street Journal editorial they said, ``But now comes Mr. Thomas, the chief tax writer, who has proposed a compromise that would be voted on as early as today but is hardly an improvement over current law.''

I will tell you who the richest of the rich are. Dick Patton of the American Family Business Institute says, ``We flatly oppose the Thomas plan. The more our members hear about it, the angrier they get.'' Who are they? The real richest of the rich.

So I find it rather ironic that they need to play those same old tired cards that this is the rich versus everyone else, when today the rich have spoken. They don't like the compromise. A compromise is a compromise.

Now, let us turn to a paper, The Washington Post, which said yesterday: ``The search for a compromise has pitted affluent small business owners against the truly rich, families with estates valued at tens of millions of dollars.'' The paper says: ``Thomas came down in favor of the business owners.'' And we know the Wall Street Journal agrees I didn't come down on the side of the rich.

This is a compromise. We will send it over to the Senate, and we will see if there are 60 Members of the Senate that want to remove once and for all the uncertainty in this very difficult area.

The National Federation of Independent Business says this is a reasonable compromise and they will be watching everyone's vote. Who? For the very rich? No. For the small businessman that creates all the jobs. A few extra dollars and the ability to keep the business together after the principal owner has died will make sure that we can continue this economy in the robust way in which it has continued.

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

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

I am heartened by the gentleman from Maryland's statement that he is now in support of current law which will move to 3.5. Everyone just needs to remember he was opposed to the legislation that put it into effect. I expect 5 or 6 years from now he will be in favor of this particular measure when he speaks on the floor, although he will be opposed to putting it into law. I always appreciate those kinds of positions.

The gentleman also quoted a very liberal think tank that dreams up numbers that allows them to make outlandish statements on the floor of the House. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper, says that over a 10-year period this measure will not be $700-some billion; it is $283 billion.

Again, you will hear extremely outrageous statements, as we heard on the underlying legislation in which, for example, the gentleman from Maryland opposed but now blithely says I support. The point is, why not be right the first time? Why not support the legislation when it is in front of you? Why not vote now for H.R. 5638 instead of waiting to say you are for what the bill did after it becomes law?

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) on the compromise bill, H.R. 5638.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to indicate that for the first time in my memory I completely agreed with the gentleman from Washington when he said, if you have just tuned in, and you are watching me, you are watching the theater of the absurd.

We are not repealing the estate tax so Mr. Gates wasted a phone call. I hope he is a little more in tune with what is going on in the software world than he is what is going on in the floor of the House.

We are not doing away with the estate tax. We are producing a compromise which will pass this House and go to the Senate in an attempt to make permanent law and remove uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

(Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to provide 3 minutes in support of H.R. 5638, the compromise that is endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the majority whip of the House of Representatives, to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a newer Member of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 2 minutes to a colleague, someone who understands the reason we are here today, a cosponsor of H.R. 5638, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee who has been a stalwart on this issue, who has been in the forefront and is one of those who not only knows this issue from an intellectual point of view, but who has lived it with his family, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I will be the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of democracy and in opposition to aristocracy, and simply and humbly request I have the same clock that was just used.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I also want to be on record as being opposed to a theocracy. And I will tell you that today, shortly, democracy will be demonstrated when the House of Representatives determines whether or not it sends this compromise measure over to the Senate with a majority vote.

I know it is a mystery to some people. And I found it most revealing in a poll when Americans were being polled as to whether or not you supported either repeal or making smaller the estate or death tax.

One gentleman responded to the poll that he was in favor of repeal, and if he couldn't get repeal, he wanted it smaller. And given the location in which the question was asked, in the home which the gentleman lived, the questioner said, ``But you aren't currently in a position to benefit from the estate tax, whether it's repealed or not.''

And he said very simply, ``But I want to have the opportunity to be able to.''

That is really the American dream. It really is what democracy is all about. It really is keeping more of your hard-earned efforts at the end of your life, or, if this bill becomes law, the amount that is legally appropriate, $5 million per individual, to be given while you are alive or after you pass or partially when you are alive or partially when you have passed. As one of my colleagues said, after all, it is your money.

The estate tax does deal with progrowth or antigrowth because it is simply a tax on capital and savings. The lower the tax on capital and savings, the greater the opportunity for growth.

We have heard the argument that this really is not a compromise. I believe it is a compromise. I said why. But I think the real test as to whether something is or is not a compromise is what I like to call the Goldilocks test. The Wall Street Journal thinks this is too cold. An individual representing the richest people in America, Dick Patten of the American Family Business Institute, says, ``We flatly oppose the Thomas plan. It just isn't good enough.'' The gentleman from North Dakota says, This is virtually repeal. It is just way too hot.

Well, for some it is too hot; for some it is too cold. It sounds to me like that we have got a compromise that has a chance to pass the United States Senate. We know it will pass the House of Representatives.

Mr. Majority Leader, you asked for a bill that should become law. Mr. Majority Leader, the House is sending you the bill you asked for.

I urge support of H.R. 5638. I urge the Senate to take up the compromise as soon as possible. And when that bill is sent to the President, the American people, those who work hard and expect to retain or pass on at the end of their lives a portion of their earnings during that life, will have achieved a significant victory, not in a theocracy, not in an aristocracy, but in a democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit and believe the point of order is in order because this supposed motion to recommit is not germane.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman supposed to respond to the point of order, or is he allowed to make a partisan political speech which is not germane to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Beginning your statement with ``this is why it is germane'' is not addressing the germaneness question.

Mr. Speaker, under the rule in consideration of this bill, the minority was allowed a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit was offered. It was clearly on its face nongermane. The Chair has just ruled that that so-called motion to recommit was nongermane. However, under the rules, that nongermane bill was read. It amounts to a political pamphlet.

Yes. The offer of the motion to recommit would have been exhausted, and I would simply say if that is not the case, they could offer another 10 partisan tracts on the argument that it is a motion to recommit, make the same arguments, and never violate the rules, and that is not under the spirit of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was not timely in his request to appeal the decision of the Chair.

The gentleman moves to lay the motion on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.

The gentleman from California rises, just as he did previously, to gain recognition to indicate that I move that we table the motion to lay the bill on the table of the objection of the gentleman from Maryland on the ruling of the Chair.

So I now have a lay on the table of two objections of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize to the Members for the wasted time based upon the obvious partisan motion to recommit which was not germane.

The best thing I can say about this one is it is germane. It is an index. We have no score, nothing from the Joint Tax Committee. You will be pleased to know I will yield back the balance of my time. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Recommit and in favor of the Pomeroy Substitute to H.R. 5638, the ``Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006.''

The GOP bill is fiscally irresponsible, costing $762 billion over 10 years--heaping even more debt onto our children and grandchildren. At a time of record deficits, the bill would cost about $290 billion from fiscal years 2006-2016. The estate tax provisions do not take effect until 2011. Thus, the actual cost of H.R. 5638 over the period from 2012 until 2021 shows the impact that the bill will have in the first ten years it is in effect. This more accurate 10-year cost would exceed three-quarters of a trillion dollars when interest payments on the debt incurred are included according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' estimates. Already, the GOP has squandered $5.6 trillion in 10-year surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion 10-year deficit. Congress just raised the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion, in March-- amounting to about $100,000 of debt for each tax paying family.

The Pomeroy Substitute provides estate tax relief for 99.7 percent of all estates. The Pomeroy Substitute offers more estate tax relief sooner, and is a simpler and more responsible solution over the long- term--raising the amount of an estate excluded from taxes to $6 million per couple and increasing this to $7 million by 2009. Not only did this provide relief for small businesses and family farmers, but it would not have heaped more debt onto our children and grandchildren--costing only 60 percent of H.R. 5638. The Pomeroy Substitute is paid for by closing the gap in unpaid taxes, but Republicans are refusing to allow these provisions to be considered. It would also simplify estate tax planning for married couples who could carry over any unused exemption to the surviving spouse assuring that the full $7 million would be available.

Furthermore, the Pomeroy Substitute transfers the estate tax revenue tax receipts to shore up the Social Security trust fund, and the Social Security Actuary has calculated that this action would solve one quarter of the trust fund's shortfall. Last year, Democrats voted for a similar measure.

Almost no working farmers ever pay the estate tax. Under the $3.5 million exemption to take effect in 2009, the number of family farms required to pay any taxes would have been just 65 in 2000, along with 94 small businesses. Support the Pomeroy Substitute. Vote ``aye'' on the Motion to Recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 5638, the ``Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006.''

Mr. Speaker, I have voted for estate tax relief before but I oppose this bill because it is irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthy when the Nation is at war and the national debt is over $8 trillion dollars.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that Thomas's estate tax proposal will cost the Federal Government $602 billion, plus an extra $160 billion when interest is accounted for. Only 0.5 percent of the richest families in America currently pay estate taxes. Moreover, under current law in 2009, only 3 out of every 1,000 estates will pay a penny in estate taxes--all couples with estates up to $7 million--99.7 percent--will pass on their entire estates tax-free. Any compromise proposal which deviates from 2009 current law--such as Thomas' bill and Kyl's older proposal--is therefore crafted entirely to benefit this tiny sliver of the richest estates.

American voters stand strongly against drastic estate tax legislation. According to recent polling data, nearly 60 percent of voters hold the initial, unaided view that estate tax should be left as is or reformed, and only 23 percent support repeal. When asked about the estate tax in the context of other budget priorities, voters rank repealing the estate tax as the last priority, and 55 percent of voters oppose repeal.

This so-called compromise, nearly as regressive and costly as a full repeal, is no compromise at all. Passing even this compromise legislation would constitute one of the most regressive tax cuts in the history of the United States. Middle- and lower-class Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of radically decreasing the estate tax-- both monetarily and through decreased public programs. In order to cover the monetary gap, the government will plunge further into debt, which will limit its ability to address the Social Security solvency gap and reduce the money available for public programs. It will also have to tap other tax sources, like payroll taxes, which will overwhelmingly hinder lower-income families.

I urge my colleagues to uphold the core American values of fairness and belief in meritocracy by rejecting this tax cut.

If we really wish to help the most deserving American families, we should raise the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I have voted for estate tax relief before but I oppose this bill because it is irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthy when the Nation is at war and the national debt is over $8 trillion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unconscionable to be considering voting another tax cut to the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this estate tax proposal will cost the Federal Government $602 billion, plus an extra $160 billion when interest is accounted for. Only 0.5 percent of the richest families in America currently pay estate taxes. Moreover, under current law in 2009, only 3 out of every 1,000 estates will pay a penny in estate taxes--all couples with estates up to $7 million, 99.7 percent, will pass on their entire estates tax-free. Any compromise proposal which deviates from 2009 current law--such as H.R. 5638--is therefore crafted entirely to benefit this tiny sliver of the richest estates.

American voters stand strongly against drastic estate tax legislation. According to recent polling data, nearly 60 percent of voters hold the initial, unaided view that estate tax should be left as is or reformed, and only 23 percent support repeal. When asked about the estate tax in the context of other budget priorities, voters rank repealing the estate tax as the last priority, and 55 percent of voters oppose repeal.

This so-called compromise, nearly as regressive and costly as a full repeal, is no compromise at all. Passing even this compromise legislation would constitute one of the most regressive tax cuts in the history of the United States. Middle- and lower-class Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of radically decreasing the estate tax-- both monetarily and through decreased public programs. In order to cover the monetary gap, the Government will plunge further into debt, which will limit its ability to address the Social Security solvency gap and reduce the money available for public programs. It will also have to tap other tax sources, like payroll taxes, which will overwhelmingly hinder lower-income families.

I urge my colleagues to uphold the core American values of fairness and belief in meritocracy by rejecting this tax cut.

If we really wish to help the most deserving American families, we should raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 3 years. Mr. Speaker, did you know that today's minimum wage of $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $4.23 in 1995, which is even lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase? It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, that a person can work full-time, 40 hours per week, for 52 weeks, earning the minimum wage would gross just $10,700, which is well below the poverty line.

A minimum wage increase would raise the wages of millions of workers:

An estimated 7.3 million workers, 5.8 percent of the workforce, would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage was raised from $5.15 to $7.25 by June 2007. Due to ``spillover effects,'' the 8.2 million workers, 6.5 percent of the workforce, earning up to $1.00 above the minimum would also be likely to benefit from an increase.

Raising the minimum wage will benefit working families. The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half, 54 percent, of his or her family's weekly earnings.

An estimated 760,000 single mothers with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007.

Single mothers would benefit disproportionately from an increase-- single mothers are 10.4 percent of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 5.3 percent of the overall workforce. Approximately 1.8 million parents with children under 18 would benefit.

Contrary to popular myths and urban legends, adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase. Seventy-two percent of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007 are adults, age 20 or older. Close to half, 43.9 percent, of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third, 34.5 percent, work between 20 and 34 hours per week.

Minimum wage increases benefit disadvantaged workers and women are the largest group of beneficiaries from a minimum wage increase; 60.6 percent of workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 by 2007 are women. An estimated 7.3 percent of working women would benefit directly from that increase in the minimum wage.

A disproportionate share of minorities would benefit from a minimum wage increase. African Americans represent 11.1 percent of the total workforce, but are 15.3 percent of workers affected by an increase. Similarly, 13.4 percent of the total workforce is Hispanic, but Hispanics are 19.7 percent of workers affected by an increase.

The benefits of the increase disproportionately help those working households at the bottom of the income scale. Although households in the bottom 20 percent received only 5.1 percent of national income, 38.1 percent of the benefits of a minimum wage increase to $7.25 would go to these workers. The majority of the benefits, 58.5 percent, of an increase would go to families with working, prime-aged adults in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution.

Among families with children and a low-wage worker affected by a minimum wage increase to $7.25, the affected worker contributes, on average, half of the family's earnings. Thirty-six percent of such workers actually contribute 100 percent of their family's earnings.

A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers. Between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31 percent of its real value. By contrast, between 1989 and 1997, the year of the most recent increase, the minimum wage was raised four times and recovered about one-third of the value it lost in the 1980s.

Income inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 33 percent of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since 1949. A minimum wage increase is part of a broad strategy to end poverty. As welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the minimum wage often claim that increasing the wage will cost jobs and harm the economy. Of course, Mr. Chairman, there is no credible study to support such claims. In fact, a 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. The truth is that following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. And after the minimum wage was increased, the country went on to enjoy the most sustained period of economic prosperity in history. We had historic low levels of unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, and decreased poverty rates. Studies have shown that the best performing small businesses are located in States with the highest minimum wages. Between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses in States with a minimum wage higher than the Federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent growth in States where the Federal level prevailed.

So much for the discredited notion that raising the minimum wage harms the economy. It does not. But it increases the purchasing power of those who most need the money, which is far more than can be said of the Republicans' devotion to cutting taxes for multimillionaires.

Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly side with progressive principles of rewarding hard work with a living wage. In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 86 percent of Americans favored raising the minimum wage. In the 2004 election, voters in Florida and Nevada, two States won by President Bush, overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. Even in Nevada's richest county, 61.5 percent of Douglas, where Bush received 63.5 percent of the vote, voters supported raising the minimum wage.

Forty-three percent of Americans consider raising the minimum wage to be a top priority. In contrast, only 34 percent considered making the recent Federal income tax cuts permanent and only 27 percent consider the passage of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as top priorities.

Members of Congress have legislated a minimum salary for themselves and have seen fit to raise it eight times since they last raised the minimum wage. It is time we gave the Americans we represent a long- overdue pay raise by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 over 3 years. Even this amount does not keep pace with the cost of living. The minimum wage would have to be increased to $9.05 to equal the purchasing power it had in 1968. And if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the salary increase corporate CEOs have received, it would now be $23.03 per hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why now are we taking up this bill? Why have we decided, that is, the majority, that at a time that our Nation is at war, when our men and women are dying to bring democracy to Iraq, where there are problems getting the equipment they need to protect themselves, when we cannot provide even our veterans with adequate health care and education opportunities, why now, when we find ourselves with a historic $9 trillion indebtedness, when just the interest of this debt is going to prohibit the Congresses that follow us from doing the things that our great Nation would want to do, why now, when the people that have been hit by Rita and Katrina can't restore their lives, why now, when the poor are increasing in population, are we reaching out to the richest of the rich Americans? Why now would the Republican leadership make this a priority for three- tenths of 1 percent of the American people?

Who are these people? How do they have such a communication with the leadership?

The Joint Economic Committee, which is not Republican and not Democrat, they are just fair, they say under existing law nobody except 7,500 families would be liable for any taxes on an estate.

They call it a ``death tax'' because they know how to play on words. Dead people don't pay taxes. But they can use what they want to get people emotionally involved.

But if there is anyone that is concerned about this Republic and making certain that the economy is sound and that wars that we start are paid for and that old folks are able to be taken care of through a Social Security act, why now would they come with this repeal? Because it is a repeal. It is 80 percent a repeal. It is going to cost more than the original repeal. Why do they want these sound tracks to be able to say that they supported repeal of the death tax?

I am going to tell you why. Because they have a mission. They are so organized that they want to destroy everything that Franklin Delano Roosevelt started. And it is not me that is saying that. It is their voting record that says it. Things that Americans are so proud of.

Social Security, a little cushion for people who worked every day in their lives and all they want is a little help with their security. Privatization, that is what we have to do. Medicare, this is something that we have come to depend on. They want it to implode, the things that they cannot deal with from a political point of view, the third rails, if they will.

If they make certain that there are no resources left for Democrats to handle, they have won. And they don't care how many Republicans lose, because their mission is to destroy every bit of social services by saying how can we pay for it.

So I submit to you that anytime a party is prepared to give $2 trillion of tax cuts because it is going to present economic growth and then go to Communist China to borrow the money, there is something wrong with that picture.

And I am suggesting, too, that these 7,500 beneficiaries, they are not begging for this money. They are not getting calls every day. We certainly don't get them. And they wish they were getting them, but they are not getting them, because most people God has blessed to get into this income status are so satisfied that they believe that they owe this Republic some indebtedness for the freedom and equality and opportunity that they receive.

And so if you have any question about supporting the programs that you are proud of as Americans, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, remember one thing: if you get carried with the emotion, one day you will have to explain, why now? Why, when your great country was in so much debt, did you figure that you had to reward 7,500 people? Why now, when your Nation is at war and the GIs will be coming back, those that do, and they ask why can't we get a decent shake and you say because we didn't have the money, we had to give it to the 7,500? Why now, when you take a look at the budgets that we are going to have, either as Republican leadership or Democratic leadership, that we are going to say that the interest that we owe to

foreign countries prevent us from taking care of the things that we have here?

This is not a scheme to reward 7,500 people. This is a scheme to take the resources away from this great Nation that has a commitment to our young and our old for health and education and the things that would really make us a strong Nation. And at the end of the day the fact that they are going to lose the majority won't mean anything because it would be a part of a plan not to perpetuate Republican or, for lack of a better word, leadership, but to destroy a system that Franklin Roosevelt had the hearts and the minds of this great country.

So I submit to you, you can do what sounds like it is the right thing to do because they call it a death tax, but it will be the death of democracy and freedom and the ability to provide the services that are expected of us, not as politicians, but as Americans and Members of Congress. This is going to be a historic vote, and the question is going to be, Which side of this vote did you vote on?

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, if the rich don't want it and the middle class don't want it, why can't we get on with just the minimum-wage increase and put this behind us?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like our Democratic whip, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to be given 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, and that is the best they can do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the conscience of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. Lewis, the gentleman from Georgia, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to a leader in the United States Congress and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, an outstanding hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Neal, 2 minutes.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a Member who really understands this problem.

What is the time? I think I would want the majority to catch up in terms of the time gap.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield for 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. There seems to be some confusion as to who the beneficiary is of this special legislation. I suggest to you that if you belong to the one-third of 1 percent of not working families, but families who have inherited an estate that is valued over $3.5 million, or $7 million if you are a couple, that in 2009 you will be the beneficiary.

If there is some confusion about the hundreds of millions of people who work every day, and those six million of them that are at minimum wage, then I suggest to you that you will get nothing from this. But if you are in doubt as to whether one side is just making it up as they go along, and the other side has any question about it, I suggest that you go to the Internet, www.house.gov.jct. That is the Joint Committee on Taxation, and you will be able to decide whether you hit the lottery. If your name is not there with the 7,500 families, then you are a loser in this enormously expensive legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the outstanding leader of the Democratic Party and, indeed, our country, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, may I respond?

Mr. Speaker, one may wonder how germane is it when we are considering a bill that 7,500 families will be the beneficiary at the cost of $800 billion, as opposed to what I am raising in the motion to recommit, and that is the lives of 6.6 million working people that really are working at the minimum wage. So there is a difference in how we perceive what we are doing today, whether the hundreds of million of people that work every day should be sacrificed at a cost of close to $1 trillion when, in fact, we are talking about 7,500 families that have not worked for the money but are going to inherit the money.

parliamentary inquiry

Well, that was my point, that I am trying to show the significance of taxpayers; taxpayers, where one group is at the minimum wage, and people who, right now 99.7 percent of these people, do not pay taxes on their estate. So clearly we are talking in terms of who is suffering the liability of taxes.

The germaneness is who is going to pay for this bill that is before us today? And the motion to recommit says that we should consider the millions of people who work every day that don't get this type of relief.

Well, I will yield to the Chair to determine what is fair and what is equitable as we talk about the lives of working people that pay taxes every day as opposed to having a trillion dollars to be disbursed to people who don't pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

First of all, when I asked for a vote, you asked for the votes for the ayes. It was my intention, in case we had lost, to ask for a vote on this because a quorum is not present.

What is happening here, and my parliamentary inquiry is, once you took the ayes, we never got an opportunity to find out the nays. So I am in the position now that I cannot challenge the Chair. After you asked for the aye votes, you never asked for the nay votes. How can we determine what the ruling of the Chair is?

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Is at this stage a motion to adjourn in order?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of consideration. It is inappropriate to consider this bill until the Republican leadership schedules a vote on an increase in the minimum wage, which they are now blocking. Therefore, under clause 3, rule XVI, I demand a vote on the question of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I congratulate him on his, as always, excellent leadership on behalf of the middle-class working families in America. I salute him for his excellent presentation today.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the ultimate values debate. The question before us today is, Do we want to cut taxes for the ultra-superrich, or, instead, do we first want to give hardworking Americans a raise?

Do we want to live in an aristocracy, or do we want to live in a democracy?

Do we want to perpetuate wealth or reward work?

The estate tax is central to our democracy. It is rooted in our commitment to create a strong and vibrant middle class and to give every American the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

After the Gilded Age, in which the elites of the time held power and wealth that far, far, far outstripped what the average American had, America decided to go in a new direction.

One of America's great Republican Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, made the argument for an estate tax, saying that the ``really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in its kind, as well as its degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means.'' Therefore, President Theodore Roosevelt said, ``I believe in a graduated tax on big fortunes properly safeguarded against evasion.''

Democrats believe that we must create wealth. We recognize that, that we must reward entrepreneurship and risk, and we must encourage hard work. That is why Democrats supported a targeted estate tax relief for small businesses and farmers and families that would ensure 99.7 percent of all Americans don't pay any estate tax. This is in the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt, targeting the vast fortunes that differ not only in the quantity of wealth, but in the kind.

I salute Congressman Earl Pomeroy for his leadership in giving Congress an alternative that is morally and fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, once again, the Republican leadership, just as they have blocked a vote on the minimum wage, are blocking Mr. Pomeroy's option to bring his proposal to the floor, which is responsible, which is paid for, and which is fair to all Americans.

Under Mr. Pomeroy's proposal, only the top .3 percent, that means 99.7 percent of Americans, most people in America, would not pay any estate tax. But it would leave that .3 percent, the very, very, superwealthy, to pay their fair share. There are very few people involved, but a great deal of money. We will have a chance to vote on it in the motion to recommit. Unfortunately, we will not have the time to debate it as an alternative.

We have these questions that have come before us when we are talking about this. We are talking about giving $800 billion to a few families in America. Democrats stand for fiscal responsibility, pay-as-you-go budgets, and no new deficit spending.

Republicans, instead, have put forth the bill that will cost the American people, again, almost $800 billion; $800 billion that we don't have, that we are going to have to borrow.

Our national debt is becoming a national security issue. Countries that now own our debt, it is over $1 trillion already, and this doesn't include this $800 billion, those countries that now own our debt will not only be making our toys, our clothes and our computers, they will be soon making our foreign policy. They have too much leverage over us.

With this bill today, the Republicans are giving tax cuts to the wealthy and asking the middle class to pay for it by writing checks to China and Japan for the interest payments on the debt and, ultimately, the payment on principal. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous.

Let me get this straight. We are at war in Iraq. Many of the same people who wanted to support the stay-the-course that the President is on in Iraq, which has around a $400 billion price tag on it, that is off budget. They don't want to pay for that. And that is a huge figure. And now the Republicans are saying, not only that, not only are we not paying for the war, it is off budget. We will just heap that debt on to future generations. They are saying, we are going to give twice as much as that to a few families in America. It is so unfair, this same week that we are taking this up.

As I said earlier, this is the ultimate values debate. How can a person of conscience say to the Congress, we do not support an increase in the minimum wage. Instead we are going to give $800 billion to the wealthiest people in America.

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. It hasn't been raised in 9 years. This is a shame. It is a disgrace. It is unfair.

And what does the leader on the Republican side say about the minimum wage? Mr. Boehner says, I have been in this business for 25 years and I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think the vast majority of the Republican conference is opposed to it.

So thank you, Mr. Boehner, for making a differentiation for us. You are for $800 billion for the wealthiest families in America, and not an increase of over $5.15 an hour for America's working families. So instead of giving 7 million Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage, again, the Republicans are proposing $800 billion, that is nearly $1 trillion, as a gift to the wealthy. This is Robin Hood in reverse. We are stealing from the middle class to give to the wealthy.

Pope Benedict just recently put out his new encyclical, ``God is Love.'' And in his encyclical, he quoted Saint Augustine when he wrote, this is in the Pope's encyclical. You can find it there. He talked about the role that politicians have and that a government should be just, and we should be promoting justice. And he goes on, Pope Benedict does, to quote Saint Augustine. He says: ``A state that is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.'' This is the Pope saying this in an encyclical, quoting a saint. ``A state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of thieves.''

I ask this Congress, is it justice to steal from the middle class to give tax cuts to the ultra-superrich?

It is not just. And it is an injustice we cannot afford. Americans can no longer afford President Bush and the Republicans. It is time for a new direction. We can begin by rejecting this estate tax giveaway to the wealthy and insist on a vote to increase the minimum wage. That would be a real values judgment.

This has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 5\1/2\ years, this Republican majority has repeatedly pushed tax legislation that is blatantly unfair, grossly irresponsible, and fiscally ruinous. Today, however, they outdo even themselves.

Our Nation is at war, our brave troops are under fire, our Nation is facing record budget deficits. That is the legacy of this Republican leadership. And the national debt, which now stands at $8.4 trillion, is exploding under this Republican Congress and administration.

Despite all the challenges facing the people of our Nation, today this Republican majority insists that we give a huge tax break to the heirs of the wealthiest people in America. I am for modification that is in process, not this bill.

If there ever was a bill that demonstrated the Republican Party's misguided priorities and the deep differences between our parties, this is the one. Democrats are continuing to fight to raise the Federal minimum wage which has not been increased since 1997 and which is at its lowest level in half a century; 6.6 million workers would be affected, 7,500 people in this bill.

As the majority leader told the press on Tuesday: ``I am opposed to it,'' meaning the increase in the minimum wage, ``and I think the vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.''

But this bill comes to us, not been to committee, never marked up in committee, comes directly to the floor with no consideration.

Let us be clear about the facts. Less than 1 percent of all estates in America will pay estate taxes in 2006 under this year's exemption before this bill. And when the exemption increases in 2009 to $3.5 million, which I have supported, $7 million for couples, only 7,500 estates in America will be subject to the estate tax. But that is not enough. Warren Buffet said they talk about class warfare and his class is winning. Amen, Mr. Buffet.

Today, House Republicans are falling all over themselves to give the heirs of approximately 7,500 estates a tax cut. This bill is not only morally reprehensible but fiscally irresponsible. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this Republican bill will cost $762 billion over its first 10 years.

You don't have $762 billion. We are all correct, you are going to borrow it for the Chinese, from the Saudis, from the Germans, from the Japanese, and others. And who is going to pay the bill? Our children are going to have to pay the bill, our grandchildren are going to have to pay that bill, because you don't have the money.

The Wall Street Journal, which was quoted by Mr. Thomas, said the other day they didn't agree with PAYGO. Why don't they agree with PAYGO? Because it would undercut tax cuts. Why would it undercut tax cuts? Because you neither have the courage nor the ability to pay for your tax cuts.

Vote against this bad bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, a vote is in progress.

The House is in the process of a vote.

motion to table offered by mr. thomas

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I make a point of order that that motion is not in order. The Speaker called for a vote. The aye votes were taken. The next question is the no votes. We are in the process of a vote. And until such time as that vote is concluded, a motion is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, you can run over us. We understand that. We do not have the votes. But you called the vote, Mr. Speaker, and we were in the process of a vote, and he had not been recognized at that point. Now, the fact that he was seeking recognition or not is irrelevant.

Yes.

That the gentleman's motion is not in order because we were in the process of voting on the issue that was propounded by the gentleman from New York.

I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I have appealed the previous ruling of the Chair. An appeal to the ruling of the Chair is pending.

I do. I make a parliamentary inquiry.

I would propound this parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate during the course of a vote, and after one side of the vote has been made and pending the request for the nays in this case, is it appropriate to stop that vote and then recognize someone at that point in time?

The Speaker's recollection is different than mine. The Speaker propounds and the Parliamentarian advises that apparently you began. Frankly, we were in the process. You had called for the ayes, the ayes had been made, and you were then about to call for the nays.

So I would suggest it was not a question that you had begun and then saw that the gentleman from California had risen and then sought to recognize him. What you did was, after asking for the ayes, which were enunciated, you then stopped the vote and then recognized the gentleman from California.

My question to you, therefore, you did not respond to. Once the vote is in progress, and I suggest to the Speaker and those who might advise him that the Record will reflect that the vote had been called, it is in that context that I again ask you, Mr. Speaker, not if you had started, but, in fact, we were in the progress of a vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.