Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Republican colleagues for providing the American people with

the clearest possible demonstration of just how stark the differences are between the priorities of our Nation's two major parties.

We have before us a bill whose sole purpose, the sole purpose is to funnel as much as $1 trillion over the next decade to a mere handful of our Nation's richest families.

It is telling that Republican leadership is so committed and so determined to see this legislation through that it called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee last night to make sure it reached the floor this morning, even though it will not take effect for 4 years.

Now, let me tell you a bill that will expire is the Voting Rights Act, but we could not deal with that. This is the Republican definition of a national emergency, to get as much money as we can to the richest among us. It is not unprecedented national debt. That does not bother them. The struggling middle class? No. Or the fact that tens of millions of Americans scrape by from paycheck to paycheck, scrape by without health insurance, without help and, in many cases, without hope.

To get this bill to where it is today, the Republicans had to ignore the needs of virtually every American citizen. The repeal of the estate tax will benefit less than 1 percent of the people in this country, but those few individuals that it helps will profit handsomely.

Take Lee Raymond, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who recently secured a retirement package worth almost $400 million, and who last year made more in a single day, probably in a single hour, than the average American family makes in an entire year. Lee stands to gain up to $211 million from this legislation that he will not pay taxes on.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the officers of the Cabinet will not do so badly either. Together they will pocket anywhere from $91 million to $344 million. Just the Cabinet.

People like these are among the three-tenths of 1 percent of superrich Americans who pay an estate tax, and that is it. The other 99.7 percent do not see a dime. Such an astonishingly lopsided outcome is to be expected when we realize who is actually behind this bill.

A recent report from the group Public Citizenry revealed that 18 of the richest families in America, families worth a combined total of $185 billion, have been conducting a concerted and clandestine campaign on its behalf for a decade. We are talking about families that are heirs to the fortunes of families like Wal-Mart, Campbell's Soup and Mars, Incorporated. These 18 families, Mr. Speaker, have spent $490 million in the last decade in their effort to pass this bill. Imagine that, $490 million to lobbyists, and if it does pass, their investment will certainly have been worth it because over $70 billion will be headed their way.

For years, supporters of a repeal of the estate tax have claimed that the people they really want to help are America's small businesses and farmers. Well, as is so often the case, that is a lie. Small business families rarely, if ever, pay estate taxes, and the American Farm Bureau, one of the leading proponents of this repeal, has failed to provide even one legitimate example of a family that lost its farm because of estate tax requirements.

This is the kind of government Republicans have used their time and power to give us, Mr. Speaker. Multibillionaires say, jump, and the majority says, how high?

Bills like this are so outlandish and so entirely justifiable, they would be comical if they were not an assault on the strength of our Union, which is, I might remind everyone, at war.

Consider the opportunity cost of this bill. For the up to $1 trillion Federal that this leadership plans to give away, we could fully insure every single American who does not have health insurance, all 44 million of them. Think of that. We could fully fund the Medicare part D prescription plan. We could pay for all military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then we could use the money left over from that to fully fund No Child Left Behind, and, finally, give every child in America the education the President promised when he took office.

The sad thing is that what we have today is exactly the kind of legislation Americans should expect the majority, whose leader has bragged about never having voted for an increase in the minimum in his 25 years in politics, that is what we should expect from a party that would not allow the Congress to adjust the minimum wage for inflation, a party that would have, over the decades, permitted it to remain at the pathetic $3.35 an hour.

I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to try surviving on that one for a month, Mr. Speaker, and think about the trillionaires who are going to say this is chump change to them, and they do not care. But the notion that they would say if taking away the taxes of the very rich would stimulate the economy, while increasing the pay of the weakest among us, the people who are least paid, will hurt the economy, is an absurdity on its face.

Mr. Speaker, this is a telling moment for this country. It is a moment in which this leadership clearly demonstrates once and for all what its priorities are. It is making the decision that educating our children is not worth the investment, that ensuring our parents and grandparents receive the prescription drugs they need is not worth the investment; that fixing our broken health insurance system is not worth the investment; that curbing our crushing national debt is not worth the investment; but investing in the ultrarich is worth every single dime that can be squeezed out of the Federal Treasury.

The bill embodies the very definition of ``America for Sale.'' Today's Republicans are alone in this belief, Mr. Speaker. Great leaders throughout the history of our Nation have understood that our collective strength lies in our support for the working and the middle class. They have understood that the extreme polarization of wealth this majority is ushering in is fundamentally bad for America, and among those who believe that are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

I implore my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our future, for the sake of our military, for the sake of common decency, defeat this bill and begin again to work for the people of this Nation and not against them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who was denied an amendment in the Rules Committee.

I too have no further requests for time, so I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we ought to call this tax is the Paris Hilton tax. Paris Hilton, once this is passed, will be able to jetset again around the world buying herself more bling and more little dogs to carry around in her purse, and probably never work a day in her life.

But while we are helping Paris with her problems, I think we need to think about the poorest among us, those people working two and three minimum-wage jobs every single day simply to try to keep themselves alive and that we have turned our backs on now for over a decade.

So I urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage for the first time in almost 10 years. The bill is identical to the minimum-wage language included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was supposed to come to the floor this week, but was pulled by the leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule provides that immediately after the House adopts the rule for the Paris Hilton bill, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we started to help workers, instead of making the very rich in this Nation richer. And I want us to stop this nonsense that we are doing this for poor farmers. Nobody can come up with a name of a poor farmer. And we will ask the State of Indiana to give us a list of all those people who went under because of this tax.

But we are considering another massive tax cut for our Nation's wealthiest. And to make matters worse, it is done the same week that the leadership of the House blocked legislation to increase the minimum wage for those who need the help the most.

America's low-income workers need our help, but millionaires don't. We are losing our middle class. One of the best things we can do to help the low- and moderate-income families is to increase the minimum wage. It has been, as I said, a decade since it was voted to increase, and it was signed in law in 1996 with the last increase in 1997.

After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. The purchasing power of the 1997 increase has eroded since then by 20 percent. A full-time minimum-wage earner working 40 hours a week makes $10,700 annually, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The minimum wage now equals only 31 percent of the average wage for the private sector and the nonsupervisory workers, and that is the lowest share since the end of World War II.

Mr. Speaker, can there possibly be any doubt that we are long overdue for another increase in the minimum wage?

Leadership in this House has managed to implement numerous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, including this billion dollar budget buster that we are considering today, but turns its back on those who work the hardest and are paid the least, those with no lobbyists, those who struggle to make ends meet every day. They don't have any lobbyists but us on their side. And I think it is time for Congress to step up to the plate and help those who need it most, not just those with the fattest bank accounts.

And those who say an increase in the minimum wage will hurt business and economy are plain wrong, and facts argue just the opposite.

So I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help 7 million-plus American workers who will directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

And let me close by saying this is a very sad day because I believe this bill will pass. And I think this Congress of the United States will go on record as saying that we don't care about those people other than those who can hire the lobbyists and do everything that they want to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Brown.

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

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

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman 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 purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 885 is a closed rule providing 1 hour of general debate in the House on H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Congress acted in a bipartisan fashion to gradually phase out the death tax and eliminate it by 2010. However, if Congress does not act to extend this relief, in 2011 small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to the maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent.

The death tax is a form of double taxation, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is simply unfair.

The last thing families in central Washington and across the Nation should have to worry about when a loved one dies is losing a family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service. But sadly, that is the situation many hard-working families could face if a permanent and workable solution is not agreed to.

H.R. 5638, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act, would provide estate and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption from $1 million to $5 million per person, indexed for inflation, and it would lower the amount of taxation on estates.

The bill would also provide tax relief for gifts given during a person's life. Currently, gifts given when a person is alive are taxed more than gifts given through a will or death. By reunifying estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer taxes, we give individuals greater flexibility to give gifts during their life rather than at death.

I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State of Washington, there are 8.5 million acres of privately owned forests, and the forest parks industry is the State's second largest manufacturing sector.

However, the current Tax Code puts our timber industry at a distinct disadvantage against international competition by subjecting corporate timber and forest product industries to a significantly higher income tax than their overseas competitors. Included in the underlying bill is a provision that lowers the timber tax and supports an industry that provides good jobs in many rural communities, while strengthening its international competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, last year I, along with 271 other Members of the House, supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides to accomplish, this relief measure is a step in the right direction.

The Rules Committee reported House Resolution 885 by a voice vote last night. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile just to put a little bit of the historical context on this issue because it has been around for some time.

In the 106th Congress, for example, in the year 2000, the House passed a bill to phase out the death tax in 10 years and permanently repeal it. When it passed the House, it got 279 votes, obviously bipartisan. Sixty-five Democrats voted for it. In the other body, in the Senate, it passed the Senate with 59 votes, obviously on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by the President in the 106th Congress.

So, in the 107th Congress, in 2001, once again, the House passed the bill to permanently repeal the tax, phase it out over 10 years, and that bill garnered 274 votes, again a bipartisan vote out of the House.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, we were unable to get a full repeal and, instead, the death tax was phased out over 10 years, but would revert in 2011 to the 2001 rate. The expectation, of course, was that the Congress would deal with that before 2011 and fully repeal it.

In the 108th Congress, once again the House passed a bill to fully repeal the death tax, 264 votes out of the House, again on a bipartisan basis; and in the 109th Congress, this Congress, once again the House passed a full repeal, 272 votes, again on a bipartisan basis, with Democrats joining Republicans to repeal it.

The unfortunate thing is this leads us to where we are right now, and that is that the cloture motion failed in the Senate. It takes 60 votes in order to cut off debate in the Senate; and, unfortunately, the Senate only received 57 votes. So, therefore, that issue won't be taken up.

This is an effort, then, to try to get to a position where we can pass this bill out of the House and in fact pass it out of the Senate so that we can have some certainty as far as estate planning. So this issue has been around for some time. It has always enjoyed bipartisan support.

This rule simply provides for us to continue what we have been doing in the last four Congresses, and that is to pass and address this issue in a bipartisan manner. This issue has been around, I think it is timely, in fact, it is time for us to act on this. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from New York how many speakers she has, because I at this time have no more requests.

Mr. Speaker, let me just review. This issue has been around in Congress for some time. This House has acted on full repeal of the death tax for the last three Congresses on a bipartisan basis. But the reality is we simply can't get this through the full Congress because the other body simply doesn't have the votes, supermajority votes, I might add, to close off debate over there, so we have to pass something that can pass both Houses of the Congress. This bill does that. And it is important that we pass this bill as soon as we possibly can so those that are trying to plan estates after 2010 can make those plans with some certainty.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a good rule.

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