Fixing the daily hour of meeting of the First Session of the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 202, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within

which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are here today poised to pass H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

On behalf of the lead Democratic sponsor, my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), as well as the over 200 bipartisan Members who have co-sponsored this bill, I am pleased that we are poised to pass in this body this commonsense legislation.

I would like to talk about a couple of constituents, particularly a constituent named Howard Effert who is a resident of Columbia, Missouri, who in 1965 began a lumber yard business there in Columbia. He contributed $100, which was a very modest contribution, as he had three young children to provide for with a modest wage.

He had the idea and a desire for a new venture even though many within the community felt this venture would be unsuccessful, but yet his partners helped him provide the financial assistance and of course some valuable mentoring to help him open the doors to this lumber business.

Fast forward now 40 years. His two sons, Brad and Greg, are running the day-to-day operations of the business. Of course, they want this family business that has been in their family since its modest beginnings in 1965 to be able to be passed on pursuant to the American Dream, that is, to create a legacy, to help your children be better off than you were.

Yet the Effert family today, Mr. Speaker, has to write a check for $1,000 a week, $52,036 to be precise, to purchase a term life insurance policy, the proceeds of which will be to pay the Federal Government on that inevitable day that Howard Effert passes from this world to the next.

In 2001 we passed historic legislation that let all income tax payers keep a little bit more of what they earned, and this historic legislation included a repeal of the Federal death tax which was a top tax priority for a lot of small business and family farm groups. Thus under current law, the death tax is gradually phased out between now and 2010. This is accomplished by increasing the exemption from the tax. Currently it is $1.5 million shielded from this very confiscatory tax, and at the same time we chip away at that top rate, which was as high as 55 percent, and in fact, in a few isolated instances as high as 60 percent tax. We now chip that away, and it is currently 47 percent.

Unfortunately, as we know, the death tax does not stay dead and buried. As things now stand, it will rise from the grave in 2011, and it will revert to its form prior to 2001. Now, this quirk in the law can be directly attributed to the Senate's Byrd Rule, which applies to the consideration of reconciliation bills.

As a matter of basic fairness, we must permanently repeal the death tax. The death of a family member quite simply should not be a taxable event. And if it was good policy when we enacted it in 2001, it remains a good idea today.

Let me touch briefly on some policy rationales for finishing this unfinished work. The death tax is fundamentally unfair. By its very structure, the tax punishes thrift, savings, and hard work. Conversely, the tax forces taxpayers to engage in a host of economically inefficient activities to avoid the very punitive nature of the tax. Not only does this have a very real effect on taxpayers and their behavior but a negative impact on the economy.

With a tax like the death tax, a family business or farm has no choice but to divert these precious resources, as in the case of the Effert family, to plan financially for the financial impact for the tax: money that could be used to expand the business, to purchase a forklift, to bring another person on the payroll, whatever is in the best interest of that business. Instead, this money is diverted in anticipation of this very punitive tax.

Now, supporters of retaining the death tax will claim that perhaps redistribution of income promotes economic fairness and social responsibility. We will get to have that debate. I respectfully disagree. Instead of rewarding savings and investment, this tax actually rewards those who spend lavishly and leave no ongoing business interest or assets to the next generation.

I am mindful of the bumper sticker that I saw recently traveling Missouri's highways on a big recreational vehicle that says ``I am spending my children's inheritance.''

If you wanted to give some good estate tax advice to someone that has put together some assets to pass along, it would be simply to consume it. Yet as we talk about some sort of tax reform and perhaps a consumption tax, this tax actually focuses on non-consumption and on thrift and savings.

For that and for a variety of reasons, we will have the opportunity, I hope, in a good debate, in a civil discourse. I think we should permanently repeal the death tax. We should enact H.R. 8.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of individuals have worked on H.R. 8, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), one of those individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am sure the gentleman from Michigan misspoke, and I am certain it was inadvertent. The bill, H.R. 8, actually does allow for a step up in basis of $3 million for a surviving spouse and another $1.3 million for surviving heirs.

If the intent of the legislation, which it is, is to help family businesses be passed from one generation to the next and the surviving heirs choose not to farm or continue the family business, then they are the ones making the taxable decision to dispose of assets that would be subject to a 15 percent capital gains rate but certainly not the 45 percent estate tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Blunt) a colleague of mine, the majority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, among the many groups that support H.R. 8, including the National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, there are many minority owners of small businesses that also support complete repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) as he mentions Iraq and Afghanistan that the budgetary impact of H.R. 8 is really not felt until the year 2011 and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect my friend from Tennessee and I trust he will bring that passion to the floor when we have our discussion on our spending bills.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), a newly elected Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), my cosponsor of H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate in large measure the tone of the debate. What I would say to the gentlewoman who just spoke and to others who raised the red herring of Social Security is to remind folks, first of all, the Federal receipts from the Federal death tax represent less than 1.5 percent of all revenues, first of all; and, secondly, that none of the income tax money generated from the estate tax goes to Social Security for the trust funds, and eliminating the tax in no way will affect or impact current Social Security benefits. Not one bit.

Now, I do want to respond. I heard, I think, the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier say that really there has been no policy justification for keeping this tax, other than we need the money. In fact, I think one gentleman said something, from Massachusetts, about we need to pay our fair share.

Well, let me just ask you to consider your day. When you woke up this morning, if you hit the snooze button on your electric alarm clock, you are paying an electric tax. When you jumped into the shower this morning, you paid a water tax. If you saw the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I on C-SPAN debating this issue this morning, you are paying a cable TV tax. When you drove to work this morning, you are paying a gasoline tax. If you stopped for a cup of coffee, you paid a sales tax. If you used the telephone at all today, you are paying a telephone tax. And, of course, when you are at work, your wages are subject to a payroll tax that does go into Social Security, payroll taxes that do pay for Medicare, not to mention your income taxes. If you drive home to your home and you are lucky enough and fortunate enough to own a home, you are probably paying a local property tax.

When you kiss your spouse good night, you think that is free. No, leave it to the Federal Government to continue to have this thing called the marriage tax.

And, yes, if you scrape and invest and save and you build a family business, have the audacity to pursue the American dream, the Federal Government is there with its hand out saying give us 45 percent of the value of your family business.

Now I have heard from my colleagues on the other side who say that family farms are not affected. Well, then let me tell you a very quick personal story, a story of a farm family in Missouri, a young married couple who in 1956 left Portageville, Missouri, in the district of the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), with $1,000 in their pocket, and that was going to be the stake that they had. It happened that the woman was an expectant mother with her first child and, as it turned out, her only child.

That married couple happened to be my parents, and over the last 2\1/ 2\ years I have had the unfortunate reality that obviously death is inevitable, and I have had the unfortunate experience in our family of having both my father pass away in late 2002 and my mother one year ago.

I do not mind sharing with you, a 514 acre farm, a modest life insurance policy, the house that I grew up in, a combine, three tractors and some irrigation equipment, and that is it. And I am sitting across the mahogany desk from our long-time family accountant with the adding machine with a tape on it, and he is plugging in an arbitrary value for these assets that my parents invested their soul into. And I am breaking out into a cold sweat wondering whether or not this business that they built and wanted to pass on is going to fall above an arbitrary line or below an arbitrary line that we in Congress have set.

Now we did not have to pay the tax, but 14 days ago I had the requirement of filling out the form and paying the $2,000 accountant fee; and, again, I do not quarrel with that. But, Mr. Speaker, the death of a family member should not be a taxable event, period.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 8.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, just a quick comment for whatever time I may consume before yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Did I hear the last speaker correctly, that we have given away, whose money is that? It would be the American taxpayers' money, who are probably, even as we speak, trying to grapple with those forms as they have tax day coming, as the income tax payers of America that provide for the comfortable living that he and I enjoy.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, and of course, as we have had a lot of unforeseen circumstances that have occurred, as was mentioned earlier, Iraq and Afghanistan. And let us hope and pray that as permanent repeal occurs, if it occurs, in the outyears that we will not be in that war on terrorism. But I would say to my friend, and I appreciate the question, but he also mentioned the Department of Agriculture, and lest, Mr. Speaker, anyone wonder who those agricultural groups are that represent farm families across America, I would place into the Record a letter from said groups.

In essence, the letter reads as follows: The groups listed below support permanent estate tax repeal, ask for this body to vote for H.R. 8, and the letter goes on to say, individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and ranches that dot America's rural landscape. Death taxes threaten the transfer of these operations to the next generation of food and fiber producers. Sincerely, Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, the American Soybean Association, Farm Credit Council, National Association of Wheat Growers; to my friend from North Dakota, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council, National Grain Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation, National Potato Council, USA Rice Producers Federation, U.S. Rice Producers Association, and the Western Peanut Growers Association.

April 13, 2005.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The groups listed below support

permanent estate tax repeal and ask you to vote for H.R. 8,

the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

Individuals and families own virtually all of the farms and

ranches that dot America's rural landscape. Death taxes

threaten the transfer of these operations to the next

generation of food and fiber producers.

In 2001, Congress recognized the harm that death taxes

cause family businesses and voted to repeal this onerous tax.

Unfortunately, repeal scheduled for 2010 is temporary and

sunsets after only one year.

Congress should act now to make death tax repeal permanent.

Please show your support for permanent death tax repeal by

voting for H.R. 8 when the bill reaches the House floor this

week.

Sincerely,

Alabama Farmers Federation, American Farm Bureau

Federation, American Sheep Industry Association,

American Soybean Association, Farm Credit Council,

National Association of Wheat Growers, National

Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers

Association, National Cotton Council, National Grain

Sorghum Producers, National Milk Producers Federation,

National Potato Council, USA Rice Federation, US Rice

Producers Association, Western Peanut Growers

Association.

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from South Carolina, I am not sure if any of those groups happen to represent farm families in his district, but I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just indicated that the Pomeroy substitute solves the problem once and for all, and I have listened to a number of individuals on the other side during the course of this discussion that this is only going to affect the superwealthy and that really there are no family businesses that are affected by the estate tax. It has been interesting, because some of those comments have come from colleagues of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of hearings going back to at least, from my memory, 1997. So I will mention some of these folks who have come and testified in front of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Martin Whalen testified about his family-owned and -operated company, Etline Foods Corporation, a distributor of food service products in York, Pennsylvania. When they purchased the business, 48 employees; in 1997, 105 employees. Rhetorically, I would say to my friend from North Dakota, will this solve their problem?

Wayne Nelson, a farmer from Winner, South Dakota. His father farmed until his father's death in 1993. Their estate planning was inadequate. Several parcels of land in South Dakota were liquidated in order to pay the Federal tax. Will the substitute rectify that situation?

What about Roger Hannay of Hannay Reels, Incorporated, a small manufacturer in the foothills of the Catskill Mountains about 25 miles from Albany, New York, a small manufacturer employing 150 employees?

What about Richard Forrestal, Jr., a principal in Cold Spring Construction, a firm specializing in highway and bridge construction?

What about Douglas Stinson, a tree farmer from Toledo, Washington, that runs the Cowlitz Ridge Tree Farm? Each of these testified, Mr. Speaker, that they were impacted negatively by the existence of the death tax.

What about Carol Loop, Jr., president of Luke's Nursery and Greenhouses, a wholesale plant nursery operation in Jacksonville, Florida? He started his business with a $1,500 loan and a borrowed truck. Would the problem be solved with the Pomeroy substitute?

Or Christopher and Kimberly Clements of Golden Eagle Distributors in Tucson, Arizona. They lost their father unexpectedly after a valiant bout with cancer. He lost his life at the age of 58.

Or Jeannine Mizell, a third-generation owner of Mizell Lumber and Hardware Company of Kensington, Maryland.

What about Robert Sakata, a vegetable farmer from Brighton, Colorado, or Jean Stinson, a railroad track manufacturing company in Barto, Florida, running the R. W. Summers Railroad Contractors? Their family had to shut down a facility in North Carolina, laying off two-thirds of the 110 employees to pay the estate tax.

Or Jack Cakebread, founder of Cakebread Cellars in Napa Valley, California. Would each of these individuals be solved or their estate problems solved by the substitute?

It is a rhetorical question, and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) knows it, and I do not mean to put him on the spot, but he cannot answer the question because when we draw a line, an arbitrary line, wherever we draw that line, we still are going to have those entrepreneurs that have been willing to invest in their businesses, hire employees, build local communities; and as long as the death tax remains in existence, they are going to have to do some sort of estate planning.

I think it is much the better course to completely and finally permanently repeal the tax.

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

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

As the gentleman from North Dakota recognizes; and, again, I do not think he meant to misspeak, but the underlying bill, H.R. 8, does provide a step up in basis of $3 million for the surviving spouse and a $1.3 million step up in basis for surviving heirs.

Mr. Speaker, many have worked on the death tax repeal and going back even to the, I think, Family Heritage Preservation Act of 1993. The gentleman from California introduced that bill and I think had 29 cosponsors. Now, of course, we are over 200 on permanent repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

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

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the gentleman's props, I would commend to him for his reading leisurely ``The Economics of the Estate Tax: An Update,'' a Joint Economic Committee study dated June 2003 which in essence states the estate tax raises very little, if any, net revenue because of distortionary effects of the estate resulting in income tax losses roughly the same size as the revenue collected. Secondly, estate taxes force the development of environmentally sensitive land. Through 2001, 2.6 million acres of forest land were harvested and 1.3 million acres were sold every year to raise funds to pay the estate tax.

Regarding his criticism on philanthropy, the estate tax according to the Joint Economic Committee study, the estate tax may actually be one of the greatest obstacles to charitable giving as estate taxes crowd out charitable bequests.

Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I can assure my friend I will not use the entire 14 minutes to close.

Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris), a newly elected Member from the State of Washington.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on this very important piece of legislation, the repeal of the death tax and making it permanent.

The repeal of the death tax is one of the first bills that I was honored to place my name on as a cosponsor.

Growing up on a family farm in eastern Washington, I have seen firsthand the negative impacts the death tax has on our families and our businesses.

One of my top priorities in Congress is to grow jobs and expand the economy in the Pacific Northwest.

I believe that the repeal of the death tax will help accomplish this goal, especially for the farmers and small businesses in my district.

The death tax costs thousands of jobs each year; and by repealing this unnecessary tax, jobs will be created and many small business owners will be able to add workers to their payrolls.

As a Member who represents a significant farming sector, I have seen the death tax destroy some family farms. Without a doubt, death taxes hurt our farmers and our ranchers by forcing family farms to sell land, buildings or equipment needed to operate their business in order to pay for this excessive tax. Some family farmers have had to take out a second mortgage on their home to pay for the tax.

When farms and ranches shut down, so do the businesses they support, leaving many out of work and leading to a depressed rural economy.

The time is now to end the death tax. I support the passage of H.R. 8 in order to end this unjust, unfair, and inefficient tax burden on our families, businesses and especially our farming communities.

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

Let me first say, Mr. Speaker, how much I appreciate my friend from North Dakota as we have done this in a number of sessions of Congress, and I appreciate the tone, and he is a friend of mine, and I have a lot of respect for him and the intent with which he comes to this debate.

Let me answer a couple of points that have been raised in particular, first of all, about the tax simplification. Tax day is 2 days away, and I am sure taxpayers, in particular small businesses and family farmers, would appreciate anything that we can do to simplify our tax laws, and I would submit that permanent repeal of the death tax does just that.

In fact, H.R. 8 is one simple paragraph, and it reads as follows: ``Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of such Act.'' Basically, we repeal the sunset.

Now, again, the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) substitute, I counted, and I hope I am counting correctly, but 40 subparagraphs and directing accountants and the like to this subparagraph or that particular paragraph.

The reason that we are here is because of complicated and arcane Senate budget rules, called the Byrd rule, that we phase out the death tax for one single year. In 2010, it magically disappears, and then on January 1 of 2011 it springs back to life, and the uncertainty, how would one as an estate planner advise a client when the tax is gone today and comes back again in the very next year? By making death tax repeal permanent, we give taxpayers the certainty they need to make those long-term financial decisions.

The form itself, the blank form I am holding here, Form 706, is 40 pages in length for the estate tax return, 40 pages in length, and it comes with a handy dandy 30-page instruction booklet. So when one is talking about simplification, what better simplification would there be than ripping these pages dealing with the estate tax completely out of the Internal Revenue Code?

Lastly, when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it, whether or not the Pomeroy substitute, and again, in the effort to pursue the American dream, whether those businesses are going to be shielded by the Pomeroy substitute or not shielded, the fact is that as long as the tax is on the books, as long as Congress draws some line in the sand, and that is all we are doing with the substitute, is just some arbitrary line, we are still going to have those family businesses that are going to be taking some of their resources and these convoluted schemes, legal, but efforts to avoid the tax.

Again, we hear a lot about these very high-profile individuals who have been successful. I mean, this is the land of opportunity, is it not? I would submit to my colleagues that the billionaires and the top of the Fortune 500 lists, those folks have a stable full of lawyers and accountants to create this intricate estate plan to thwart the estate tax.

Not so, and I go back to the original discussion, that small family in Columbia, Missouri, the Eiffert family who spends $52,000 a year just to buy term life insurance because they might have to face the estate tax. Under the current law, or probably even under the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) substitute, there is no certainty for families like the Eiffert family.

So I salute my colleague.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), again a colleague of mine on the Committee on Ways and Means, said, why are not we debating real reform? Interestingly, there is a lot of discussion. I am not here to advocate one particular tax reform proposal because we have got this blue ribbon panel that is happening and looking at various options. There is a lot of talk about the consumption tax, and yet it is notable that, while there may be support for the idea of a general consumption tax, the death tax, by contrast, is a tax on nonconsumption.

We talk a lot, too, about sin taxes. Why can we not put taxes on alcohol or on cigarettes and the like and whether or not that generates support among certain groups. This death tax is a tax on virtue. In other words, if you work hard, you play by the rules, if you scrape together your savings, and, again, we as an industrialized Nation, not only do we have even under the Pomeroy substitute a 47 percent death tax rate which would be the second highest in the world, but the fact is that we are not very good at savings and investments. In fact, if you are looking at your 1040 right now, look at line eight because it says if you have been thrifty and you are able to generate a little interest income, guess what, Uncle Sam says put this amount here because we are going to take our bite of the apple.

Permanent repeal of the death tax actually rewards virtue.

Let me just paraphrase a column recently, actually it was some years ago

but I think republished recently by Professor Edward J. McCaffery. He is a professor who says this: ``As a committed liberal myself, I used to believe that the gift and estate tax was essential to a just society. But as a former estate planner and a scholar in both law and economics, I confess that I was mistaken. The gift and estate tax is quite simply a bad tax, even, and maybe especially, when viewed from a liberal perspective.''

Professor McCaffrey goes on and says, ``This is not a supply-side argument but a moral one. People who die with large amounts of wealth have done three good things for society. They have exercised their talents, rather than living a life of leisure. They have saved, contributing to a common pool of capital whose benefits manifest, for example, in lower interest rates, inure to all. And they have refrained from spending all of their wealth on themselves.''

In fact, Professor McCaffrey across the Capitol some years ago I think before the Senate Finance Committee said, to paraphrase Scripture, the reason he changed his mind, I was blind but now I see.

If this comes from an unrequited liberal that the estate tax, the death tax, is a bad tax, then I would suggest to all of my colleagues here that it is time to permanently and completely repeal the tax.

Finally, I would say to my friend again, because there has been some discussion about creating a new tax, as the gentleman knows, the intent of H.R. 8, the underlying bill, is to help make it easier to pass a family business from one generation to the next. As we have heard from nonpartisan groups, 70 percent of family businesses do not make it to a second generation, 87 percent of family businesses do not make it to a third generation, and often the reason cited is because of this very confiscatory punitive tax called the death tax.

The fact is that under H.R. 8, if it were to pass and become the law of the land, the tax rate imposed at death on a lifetime of work and thrift is zero percent. Under my friend's substitute amendment, the rate imposed would be locked in at 47 percent.

Now I mentioned my personal experience, and I am running our family farm. If a surviving heir chooses not to farm and then makes the conscious decision to dispose of assets, then that is a taxable event, but that is a purposeful decision made by the heirs of that family business owner. It is not the Federal Government requiring the death of a family member to be a taxable event.

So I would simply say to all of my colleagues that death should not be a taxable event, period. Under the underlying bill of H.R. 8, it would no longer be a taxable event. Under the substitute from my friend, individuals above an arbitrary line drawn by this body, death would continue to be an event that triggers the Federal death tax. That is why prominent organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, American Farm Bureau Federation and a host of other small business coalition members, representing the interest of small businesses and family farms across the country, support H.R. 8 and oppose my friend from North Dakota's substitute.

I urge a ``no'' on the substitute and a ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin noted over 200 years ago that ``in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.'' Unfortunately, the convergence of these two inescapable events, in the form of the Federal estate tax, results in a number of destructive outcomes in terms of slower economic growth, reduced social mobility, and wasted productive activity. Moreover, the costs imposed by the estate tax far outweigh any benefits that the tax might produce. For these reasons, among others, I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of permanent repeal of the Federal estate tax.

The estate tax has been enacted four times in our Nation's history-- each time in response to the exigent financial straits deriving from war. In three of those instances (1797-1802,1862-70, and 1898-1902), the estate tax was repealed shortly thereafter. Most recently, the estate tax was reintroduced during World War I (1916) and has existed ever since. What was meant to bring short-term budgetary relief has become a permanent burden on America's farmers, small business owners and families.

Some observers might believe that the estate tax is free from serious controversy. For example, it is often claimed that the tax only falls on the ``rich'' and thus serves to reduce income inequality. Other supporters of the estate tax point to the $22 billion in tax revenues for 2003, or to the incentive for charitable bequests. Nonetheless, there are many reasons to question the value of taxing the accumulated savings of productive, entrepreneurial citizens. Not the least of these reasons is the widely-held belief that families who work hard and accumulate savings should not be punished for sound budgeting. Additionally, it is unclear whether the estate tax raises any revenue at all, since most if not all of its receipts are offset by losses under the income tax.

The freedom to attain prosperity and accumulate wealth is the basis of the ``American dream.'' We are taught that through hard work we can achieve that dream and, God willing, pass it on to our children. Unfortunately, for many the estate tax turns that dream into a nightmare. The current tax treatment of a person's life accumulations is so onerous that when one dies, the children are often forced to turn over half of their inheritance to the Federal Government. The estate tax, which is imposed at an alarming 45 to 47 percent rate, is higher than in any other industrialized nation in the world except Japan. Thus, many families must watch their loved one's legacy being snatched away by the Federal Government at an agonizing time. This is tragically wrong and nullifies the hard work of those who have passed on.

In the minority community there are numerous examples of the injurious effects of the estate tax. The Chicago Daily Defender--the oldest African American-owned daily newspaper in the United States--is a good example of the unique problem presented for minority families. It was forced into bankruptcy due to financial burdens imposed by the estate tax. But, beyond that, the questions were--was the Chicago Defender family forced to sell, could a minority owner be found to purchase it, or would it become a white-owned asset, reducing the overall wealth of the African American community?

On a smaller scale, another potential victim, a storeowner named Leonard L. Harris who is a first generation owner of Chatham Food Center on the South Side of Chicago is frightened that all the work and value he has put into his business will be for naught because it will be stripped from his two sons. According to Mr. Harris, ``My focus has been putting my earnings back into growing the business. For this reason, cash resources to pay federal estate taxes, based on the way valuation is made, would force my family to sell the store in order to pay the IRS within 9 months of my death. Our yearly earnings would not cover the payment of such a high tax. I should know. I started my career as a CPA.'' These two stories are not isolated.

According to the Life Insurance Marketing Research Association, less than half of all family-owned businesses survive the death of a founder and only about 5 percent survive to the third generation.

Another recent study found the following:

Eight out of ten minority business owners questioned believe the Federal estate tax is unfair.

Only one minority business owner in three has been able to take any steps whatsoever to prepare for the ramifications of the estate tax.

One in four believes that his or her heirs will be forced to sell off at least part of their businesses to pay the estate tax liability.

Fully half the respondents already know a minority-owned business that has had trouble paying the tax, including some that have been forced to liquidate.

Those few minority-owned businesses that have been able to take steps to reduce their estate tax liability complain that it has detracted from their ability to meet business objectives by channeling time, energy and resources away from productive endeavors.

Many of my colleagues who are proponents of the estate tax contend that the tax adds progressivity to the Tax Code and provides needed tax revenue. They argue that the estate tax falls on wealthier and higher income individuals and increases the total tax paid by this segment of the population relative to their income. This helps offset the regressivity of payroll taxes and excise taxes, which fall more heavily on low-income groups relative to their income. They also argue that increasing the unified credit to $4, $5, $6 or $7 million would remove small family-owned businesses and farms from the harsh impact of the estate tax.

I share my colleagues concerns about protecting the tax base and ensuring that our Tax Code remains progressive. However, I find these arguments in support of the estate tax unconvincing in the face of substantial evidence otherwise.

First, there is no clear evidence that the estate tax is progressive or that larger estates are paying a greater portion of the tax. Wealthier members of our society are able to reduce and or eliminate the impact of the estate tax by stuffing money away here and there at the suggestion of high-priced attorneys and accountants. Similarly, tax planning techniques such as gift tax exclusions or valuation discounts reduce the size of the gross estate but do not appear in the IRS data causing effective tax rates to be overstated for many larger estates. The Institute for Policy Innovation recently revealed evidence of this fact in a study showing that the effective tax rate on the most valuable estates was actually lower than that on medium-sized estates.

Second, the insignificant amount of money the estate tax raises for the Federal Government cannot justify the harmful effects it has on business owners who spend more to avoid

the tax than the federal tax revenue raised. According to the President's fiscal year 2005 Budget, the estate and gift tax brought in $22.8 billion in revenues to the Federal Government in 2003. This represents less than 1.1 percent of the total revenues out of a more than $2 trillion Federal budget and less than the amount of money spent complying with, or trying to circumvent, the death tax.

In 2003, Congress' Joint Economic Committee reported that the death tax brought in $22 billion in annual revenue, but cost the private sector another $22 billion in compliance costs. Therefore, the total impact on the economy was a staggering $44 billion. And, when one calculates the amount of money spent on complying with the tax, the number of lost jobs resulting from businesses being sold, or the resources directed away from business expansion and into estate planning, it is clear why this punitive tax must be eliminated.

It is also important to note that many economists believe that overall tax revenues would increase if the estate tax were repealed. According to a study of estate tax repeal proposals, which was prepared by Dr. Allen Sinai for American Council for Capital Formation and Center for Policy Research, Federal tax receipts would rise in response to a stronger economy, feeding back 20 cents of every dollar of estate tax reduction. In fact, over the years 2001 to 2008, estate tax repeal would increase real Gross Domestic Product by $90 billion to $150 billion, and U.S. employment by 80,000 to 165,000.

Finally, it is not clear that increasing the unified credit to $6 or $7 million would remove small family-owned businesses and farms from the threat of the estate tax. The Small Business Administration's definition of a small business is based on industry size standards. For example, a construction company or grocery store with less than $27.5 million in annual receipts is considered a small business. Thus, families who build their businesses past the exemption amount will continue to face estate taxes that range from the aforementioned, alarming rate of 45 to 47 percent. The exemption threshold would not help these small businesses. More significantly, without significant reform or, more appropriately, repeal, these same small businesses face the prospect of estate tax rates as high as 60 percent beginning in 2011.

Permanent repeal of the estate tax will provide American families with fairness in our tax system and remove the perverse incentive that makes it is cheaper for an individual to sell the business prior to death and pay the individual capital gains rate than pass it on to heirs. But for minorities, it provides much more. It will allow wealth created in one generation to be passed on to the next thereby establishing sustainable minority communities through better jobs and education, better healthcare, and safer communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8 to permanently repeal the Federal estate tax and to restore fairness to our Nation's Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 202, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the presentation of the amendment in the nature of a substitute by yielding such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the other member of the Earl Caucus of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to carry this debate today on behalf of the minority, and a privilege to participate with the gentleman from Missouri, who is one of my favorite Members of the House. He has presented his side very well.

He asked relative to a number of estates, would they be covered under the Pomeroy substitute? Well, I believe that a number of them would have their estate tax problems completely eliminated, because we take the exemption and we double it. We go from today, a joint estate at $3 million, and we say, if you have a joint estate of $6 million, no estate tax. We, like 2009, take that up to $7 million in a joint estate circumstance.

So as to the question he asked, I do not know the particulars of those cases, but I expect that a number, if not all of them are covered, because 99.7 percent of the estates in this country are under that amount.

But there is a feature of the majority proposal that is not represented in our substitute, and I want to talk about it right now, and this involves the imposition of capital gains liability at the handling of an estate under the majority bill.

I can just imagine Members in the majority, some of them that might have signed that ``no new tax'' pledge that was going around last Congress, just wringing their hands because they are about to vote for a tax increase, a tax increase in the form of capital gains taxation on estates. Section 541 of the bill that the majority proposal would make permanent reads this way: termination of step-up in basis at death. Tax legalese, but what does it mean? It means new capital gains and capital gains if you have an estate that exceeds that 1.3 gross value. You have a reporting commitment that attaches at 1.3 gross value for estate.

You know, it is the darndest tax bill I ever saw. Because, while they talk about tax relief, they are hurting more than they are helping.

I direct you to this chart. Number of estates today with capital gains issue, zero; and that is because the taxable basis in the property is established at time of transfer in an estate. No capital gains.

What happens under their proposal? Well, we know that there are 71,000 estates in the year 2011 that are likely to have reportable amounts, in other words, gross valuation over $1.3 million. Some will have a capital gains issue they have to pay. Some will not. But they are all going to have to report with the IRS.

And this report is something else. It means going back in and trying to establish what the value of the property was at the time mom and dad acquired it. It is a nightmare. And that is well-established in the Congressional Record. Because I have here the hearing, I have here the Ways and Means record at the time the committee considered testimony to repeal the carryover basis, the very provision they want to re- establish in tax law.

You see, it passed once before, in 1976. It was delayed from implementation and then repealed retroactively because of its consequences.

Here is what some very interesting participants had to bring to the committee. Carryover basis fosters an insidious bias against farmers and ranchers. Carryover basis calculations for

land, buildings, machinery, livestock and timber have been described as, at best, potential nightmares. Trying to establish what the taxable basis on this is, which their law would require, is a nightmare. So says the American Farm Bureau in their 1979 testimony.

The Cattlemen's Association, one touted as one of these that want to re-establish capital gains on estates, they say, because of its complexity, carryover base is impossible to comply with. It will increase the tax burden and compound the illiquidity of estates of farmers, ranchers and other family business operators who sell inherited property in the normal course of business, and I quote, and find it in the record from the National Cattlemen's Association.

NFIB also states, I strongly urge you, as an individual and as a taxpayer and as one who professionally and through an association represents small business people, repeal the carryover basis. So says the National Federation of Independent Business, the very group that they have cited as trying to re-establish carryover basis in the Tax Code and put capital gains back on estates.

We have been here before. We do not want to do it again. Do you not understand, voting for the repeal bill brings a new bill, a capital gains bill, and a capital gains bill to thousands that have no estate tax consequence?

So if you want to cast a vote this afternoon for a tax relief proposal, vote the Pomeroy substitute. No capital gains in the Pomeroy substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 90 seconds.

You know, anyone in the accountant or tax-planning profession worrying about losing business because of the estate tax is going to be smiling broadly at the end of tonight when we pass this re-creation of capital gains tax and estates.

In fact, the ABA Task Force report devotes almost 70 pages to discussing the problems that exist with the new carryover basis rules in their legislation. The problems identified in the report include unequal treatment of capital losses, difficulty in applying basis adjustments to property sold during the administration of the estate, treatment of property with debt and excessive basis, treatment of installment loans, unequal treatment of pension assets, administrative problems with allocation to spousal property, discrimination in favor of spouses in community property states. Even a cursory examination of that report leads to a conclusion that serious problems exist with the new rules and that their surface simplicity is quite misleading.

Let us just walk through some of the titles, some of the titles of the new capital gains law that they are going to have: Basis increase for certain property; limit increased by unused built-in losses and carryovers; spousal property basis increases; qualified terminable interest property; definitions and special rules for application of subsections (b) and (c); fair market value limitation; coordination with Section 691; information returns, et cetera.

And to think that for every one taxpayer getting relief under their proposal, an additional ten are now going to face this nightmare. It is a funny way to give tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, in light of the imbalance of time, I would be happy to have my friend from Missouri burn up a little more of his time, unless he has no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are at the end of our time, and I yield myself the balance of the time to close our side.

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling a bit like the man in the middle as we approach this debate. There has been some on our side that suggests the Pomeroy substitute provides too much estate tax relief. Indeed, the amounts are higher than acceptable. Obviously, we have heard from the other side they believe this is too low, but I would say to my friends in the majority, and listen to this carefully, those who approach this issue with an all-or-nothing mentality are likely to get nothing.

We cannot tell what is going to happen in the year 2010. None of us know. Except there is one thing we know, and look at this chart, the national debt is going to exceed $10 trillion, $10 trillion, 36 percent above where we are at today, and this is based upon established budget projections.

Do we really believe that that future Congress is going to sit blithely by and let this become implemented? There is not a nickel's worth of certainty in that. And we all know, because as damaging as this is to the budget in the first 10 years, with $290 billion of revenue loss, debt service added, this is a $326 billion hit to the budget in the first 10 years, look what happens in the second 10 years: $1.3 trillion impact in the second 10 years when we count the value of the debt service.

Do any of us think that we are really going to allow this to happen in the future years?

That is why I have advanced a very different alternative, entitled certain and immediate estate tax relief, because it is certain and it is immediate, and it deals by taking the estate tax to $6 million per couple, $7 million per couple by the time we get to 2009. It deals with the estate tax issues of 99.7 percent of the population.

Those of my colleagues looking at this chart may not be able to see this tiny red line, because that is what three-tenths of 1 percent represent with looking at the total population, three out of 1,000, and we know that on average those estates are going to average $15 million.

So for three-tenths of 1 percent we offer an alternative that has no capital gains, that is one-quarter of the cost, that immediately phases in estate tax relief and is far and away the superior way to go. All or nothing gets us nothing. Vote Pomeroy, immediate and certain estate tax relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the last presentation. The bottom line was, he did not pay a tax. All that story, all those facts, and he did not pay a tax. He did pay his accountant some money to go through and make sure that he was doing what was right. He did that because the Tax Code is extraordinarily complicated and has been made 25 percent more complicated by the Republican majority over just the last 48 months.

Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely crystal clear: This Republican proposal is nothing but a tax increase. Hear me, this is a tax increase disguised as a tax cut.

``Who are you, Mr. Hoyer? Lewis Carroll? What is this gibberish that you are talking about?''

It would raise taxes for thousands of families and thousands of family farmers and small businesses. There are no two ways about it.

For years, House Republicans have proclaimed that the elimination of the inheritance tax, a tax, now hear me on this side of the aisle, I know you want to hear this, a tax first proposed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Now for those of you who may not be quite fully cognizant of our history, Theodore Roosevelt, of course, was a Republican President of the United States of America. It was intended to save family farms and small businesses.

But, today, not according to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), not according to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), not according to all the Democrats in this House or in the Senate, according to the Republican Department of Agriculture, I tell my friend from Missouri, the Republican Department of Agriculture says more farm estates would have increased tax liability from the carryover basis rules in this bill than would benefit from repeal of the inheritance tax. In other words, if we pass this bill, family farmers and small businesses are going to pay more taxes.

Now, I am for the Pomeroy alternative. First of all, we do not have that complicated look-back to find out what the basis was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. We do as we do now, what is the basis now when you get it?

But we exempt under the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) $7 million. That means that 99.7 percent of the people in America would never pay an estate tax. I am for that. So this argument, I tell my friend from Missouri, is about the three- tenths of 1 percent of the very largest estates in America. Because if you vote for Pomeroy, 99.7 percent are exempt. So, as we have been doing for the last 4 years, we have been talking about the upper 1 percent. That is who we are talking about.

Now we are pretty well off in Congress. The American people do pretty well by us, very frankly. I am doing well enough. I paid a little bit of Alternative Minimum Tax this year. It shocked me, but my accountant pointed out that I did. So we are doing pretty well.

But there are a whole lot of people that are not doing nearly as well as we are doing, and we are not helping them at all by simply giving away revenue that we could spend on the education of their kids and the defense of their country, which we are borrowing for, of course, so that their kids will pay the debts.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, the Joint Economic Committee estimates that only 7,500 estates, in a Nation of 290 million people where some 3 million people die every year, 7,500 estates out of the 3 million people that die would have any estate tax liability in 2009. However, the permanent switch to carryover basis rules, rules that are used to calculate cap gains, would impact an estimated 71,000 additional estates, and many of those estates would face capital gains tax increases.

Now even as this bill increases the capital gains tax on many farm estates and small businesses, I tell my friend, it still adheres to what seems to be the Republican Party's core economic principle: fiscal irresponsibility.

The gentleman says this tax, that tax, and he is right. There are a lot of taxes on all of us, and we have a lot of services in this country. And, frankly, for the most part, as the gentleman knows, particularly if you take the industrialized nations, our tax structure at the Federal level is lower. But, still, they are high, and we would like to see them reduced.

But the fact of the matter is, I have three children, three daughters, they are wonderful people, and they provided me with three grandchildren. And I am buying stuff. I am buying defense against terrorists, I am buying stabilizing Iraq, I am buying education, I am buying health care, I am buying roads. All of us are buying that.

I do not want to have to say to my grandchildren, look, I am going to use it, but you pay for it. That is an immoral policy as well as a fiscally irresponsible one, an unwillingness to pay our bills.

Now, this is $290 billion. Just $29 billion a year over 10 years. No sweat. Shoot, we are borrowing all the Social Security money right now that the Republicans said they were not going to spend a nickel of. They are going to spend $170 billion of Social Security money this year alone. How do we do that? We borrowed $118 billion last February, from foreigners mostly, which we are putting our kids deeply in hock to China, to Japan, to Germany.

At a time of record budget deficits of nearly half a trillion dollars, this Republican bill would cost nearly $1 trillion over the first 10 years of full repeal. It would irresponsibly drive our Nation even further into debt and immorally force our children to continue to be liable for our bills.

In sharp contrast, I tell my friend from Missouri, and I wish there were more people on this floor, but it is only giving away, you know, $250 billion to $1 trillion. What do we care? We have given away trillions of dollars over the last 4 years as we go trillions of dollars into debt. As a matter of fact, $9 trillion into debt.

The substitute offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is excellent. It costs less than

one-third of this Republican bill. It would permanently increase the current exclusion amounts to $3.5 million per individual and $7 million for couples. Three-tenths of the estates would be left in 2009 and, as a result, exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from estate tax liability.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for this alternative. It solves the problems of small farmers, it solves the problems of small businesses, it solves the problems of pretty significant but nevertheless smaller estates, to make sure that the hard work of mom and dad can be passed along to their daughter and their son and their son's and daughter's families.

We agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) that that is a good objective, but we also agree that we ought to have fiscally responsible policies.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, whose debt is it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess it becomes my job to point out that the Republicans are at it again. Another huge tax cut or break for the less than 1 percent of the richest Americans while they turn their back and cut Medicaid, refuse to recognize that Social Security is not in crisis but needs some adjustment, cut Head Start, cut programs for housing, cut programs for the environment, fail to provide the promised benefits to our 140,000 servicemen in Iraq, turn their back on all that is American to give a few dollars to the very richest of Americans.

Now, not all Republicans are that way. I find that many of the Republicans who have actually worked for a living at some point in their lives, and not just either inherited money or been at the trough of the government, actually oppose this bill. Warren Buffett, the Gates family, people who have done quite well think that as I do it is a stupid bill and will do nothing for our free enterprise system. It will stifle creativity and leave us with a system where merit and ability mean nothing and heredity means everything.

$300 billion over the next 10 years and perhaps another $700 billion over the decade following that are going to be frittered away to a very small number of Americans. With that we could end this talk about privatizing Social Security that President Bush is leading, and we could start shoring up the trust fund. We could get rid of the doughnut hole in the poorly constructed Medicare drug benefit. We could fulfill the promise that the President and the Republicans have ignored for funding No Child Left Behind. We could eliminate the proposed cuts to Medicaid which will hurt the poorest children in this country. And while we may help a few very rich children with an inheritance, we will cut hundreds of thousands of children's Medicaid benefits. That could be prevented.

We could cover a large portion of the 45 million people who are without health insurance, I might add 8 million more than when President Bush took office. But Republicans obviously do not care about Social Security or Medicare or the uninsured or education or the children. They only care about tax cuts for the very richest among us.

Now, if you eliminate this, you are only going to help probably less than a couple thousand people a year, and they will arguably have by 2009 estates of over $7 million. Until now there has not been a family farmer or a small business who has been unable to pass the business on to the next generation.

I might add to my friend from Missouri of his people in the lumber business, if their children cannot get the first $7 million handed to them and then get a 50 percent down payment on the balance of the business and be given 10 years at less than 6 percent to pay off the balance of that, they are probably too dumb and would lose the business in no time at all anyway.

So what the current law allows is so generous, and there have been absolutely no instances, not one, of a family farmer or family business being lost, decimated or put on the auction block because of the estate tax.

In fact, 99.7 percent of all estates would be exempt from the estate tax if

we just extend the tax as it applies in 2009. They cannot show that it harms people. They can only show that gives billions, $300 to almost $1 trillion over 20 years, to the very smallest, most select group of rich people in this country.

It is indeed a follow on of the Republican mantra, give money to the rich, give it to them in huge amounts and cut back on education, cut back on health care, do not help the environment, cut back on support for our troops and cut back on improving America's infrastructure, all in the name of helping the few rich who may be contributors to the Republican party.

I urge that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the final bill. I urge that my colleagues vote for the gentleman from North Dakota's (Mr. Pomeroy) who will offer a responsible substitute, which will at least keep the $300 billion from being squandered, and it will prevent this bill, which does nothing to help hardworking Americans or small businesses, and I hope we can bring some sanity back to the financial code and to the economic future of this country by not passing this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself enough time to remind the historians here that it was the Republicans in the 1800s who established the original inheritance tax to prevent a nobility class from forming, an idle nobility class, in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).