Earl Pomeroy

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of North Dakota for the chance to represent our great state in this great chamber for the past 9 terms.

Words cannot adequately express the feelings of gratitude I have as my time as a member of body draws to a close.

At varying times I've agreed or disagreed with virtually every member--Democratic or Republican--in this House. Steering the course for the United States of America is a very difficult and complex undertaking. As our country moves into its third century in the first decade of the new millennium, it seems like the challenges only get bigger as we go forward.

But I conclude my life here with a strong sense of hope and optimism for the future.

The United States Capitol is the icon of democracy known throughout the world. In this historic place, sometimes in the darkest hour, leaders here assembled have set the course to see us through.

If the American people exhibit the best aspects of their nature-- courage, compassion, strength, resolve, community--the leaders in the chamber will deliver accordingly.

I will always treasure the time I had here. I won some, I lost some, but I tried my best to reflect the concerns of those I represented, as well as the genuine goodness of the folks who call North Dakota home.

North Dakotans have selected a new Congressman, Representative-elect Rick Berg, and I wish him great success in delivering for our state.

In conclusion, there is one group in particular I want to thank--all of those who have served on my staff now at the end or any time during these nine terms. Present and recent staff members include Bob Siggins, Melanie Rhinehart Van Tassel, Stacy Austad, Brenden Timpe, Adam Durand, Dustin Olson, Diane Oakley, Chris Cunningham, Matt Pearce, Hillary Price, David Grant, Annie Finkenbinder, Ross Keys, Joan Carlson, Dianne Mondry, Nick Keaveny, Geoff Greenwood, Bill Heigaard, and Erin Hill.

They are extraordinarily talented and dedicated individuals, reflective of the wonderfully gifted staff members I have been privileged to work with for the 18 years of my service in the House.

Now I look forward to more time with my wife, Mary, and my children, Kathryn and Scott, as this term ends and my membership in this body ceases.

I thank my colleagues for their commitment to work so hard to serve their constituents and our country.

I have been richly blessed to have had the chance to work with you in the people's House--the United States Congress.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4853--Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

I believe it is important that we extend the so-called Bush tax cuts for everyone while our economy is still struggling to recover, and as long as we can pay for it. This bill as presented to the U.S. House does not meet that test. I am especially disappointed in the provision on the estate tax. I cannot in good conscience cast one of my last significant votes in Congress in favor of a bill that would add tens of millions of dollars to the Federal deficit to benefit the wealthiest few families in the country.

The payroll tax holiday provision included in this package is also troublesome since for the first time in 75 years, the sacrosanct, dedicated revenue stream to provide Social Security benefits is diverted for other purposes. While we have fully protected the Social Security Trust Fund in the legislation and there will be no change in how much money is in the Trust Fund, I am concerned that proponents of private accounts will argue to continue this diversion of the payroll tax beyond one year--perhaps even putting the money into private accounts. At a time when we know that the long term solvency of Social Security will need either greater contributions or significant reductions in benefit, providing a payroll tax holiday is clearly a move in the wrong direction.

Madam Chair, for the last five sessions I have worked to try and clarify the rate of estate taxation in this country. I felt the right approach was ultimately to take the 2009 levels and make them permanent.

The amendment that carries my name in this debate would take the 2009 levels for estate taxation instead of the levels contained in the Senate compromise.

The rationale for the 2009 level is pretty compelling. The estate tax in 2009 was the smallest rate of taxation on estates in 80 years.

My friend just referenced an estate tax situation encountered from his family. He did not say it was at a much higher rate of tax than was ultimately achieved in 2009. In fact, the rate in 2009 means 99.8 percent of the families in this country have no estate tax. Zero. It went gradually lower and lower, and in 2009 hit a lower rate of taxation for estates than was ever the case under Ronald Reagan, was ever the case under George Bush I, was ever the case under George W. Bush.

Now, why would we want to go with 2009 levels as opposed to the Senate deal? It's simply a matter of money: $23 billion over 2. And, quite possibly, the levels in the Senate bill would be the new rate for the estate tax. In that case, we would lose $90 billion over 10.

I have heard on the other side such concern about unpaid-for unemployment benefits. I have not heard one word about unpaid-for estate tax levels. They would add to the national debt $23 billion more than the 2009 levels. They don't pay for a cent of it, and they seem to think that is fine. Do you know who benefits from the Senate tax levels compared to the 2009 levels? 6,600 of the wealthiest families.

Let's go with the 2009 levels. Let's save $23 billion over 2, let's save $90 billion over 10. Let's tackle these deficits, starting with a fair estate tax level.