Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 91 (Friday, July 14, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 91 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6767-S6781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT OF 2000

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 8, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 8) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to phase out the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period.

Pending:

Kerry amendment No. 3839, to establish a National Housing
Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide
for the development of decent, safe, and affordable housing
for low-income families.

[[Page S6768]]

Santorum amendment No. 3838, to provide for the designation
of renewal communities and to provide tax incentives relating
to such communities, to provide a tax credit to taxpayers
investing in entities seeking to provide capital to create
new markets in low-income communities, and to provide for the
establishment of Individual Development Accounts.
Dodd amendment No. 3837, to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the
qualified family-owned business interest deduction, to
increase, expand, and simplify the child and dependent care
tax credit, to expand the adoption credit for special needs
children, to provide incentives for employer-provided child
care.
Roth amendment No. 3841, to provide for pension reform by
creating tax incentives for savings.
Harkin amendment No. 3840, to protect and provide resources
for the Social Security System, to amend title II of the
Social Security Act to eliminate the ``motherhood penalty,''
increase the widow's and widower's benefit and to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit
exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest
deduction.
Gramm (for Lott) amendment No. 3842, to provide tax relief
by providing modifications to education individual retirement
accounts.
Bayh amendment No. 3843, to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption and the
qualified family-owned business interest deduction and
provide a long-term care credit.
Feingold amendment No. 3844, to preserve budget surplus
funds so that they might be available to extend the life of
Social Security and Medicare.
Roth (for Lott) motion to commit to Committee on Finance
with instructions to report back forthwith.

Vote on Amendment No. 3839

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Kerry amendment No.
3839.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3839. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--52

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
The amendment (No. 3839) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 3838

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Santorum amendment No. 3838.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--40

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Chafee, L.
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Gramm
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Daschle
Dodd
Specter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays 40.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and not having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained
and the amendment falls.

Vote on Amendment No. 3837

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is numbered
3837.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment offered by Senators
Wellstone and Dodd----
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could--I apologize to the Senator--we
are having no statements before the votes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am making a point of order.
Mr. REID. I apologize very much.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, this amendment increases direct spending in excess of
the committee's allocation.
I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 302(f)
of the Budget Act.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Daschle), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``aye.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

[[Page S6769]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

YEAS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Daschle
Dodd
Kerry
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). On this vote, the yeas are 41,
the nays are 56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.

Vote on Amendment No. 3841

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3841.
The amendment (No. 3841) was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 3840

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3840. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``aye.''
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.]

YEAS--42

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--54

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kerrey
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--4

Daschle
Dodd
Hutchinson
Jeffords
The amendment (No. 3840) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote On Amendment No. 3843

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the Bayh
amendment No. 3843. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``aye.''--
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--51

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Daschle
Dodd
Hutchinson
The amendment (No. 3843) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 3842

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Gramm for
Lott amendment No. 3842.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson), is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Daschle), is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``no.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 14, nays 84, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.]

YEAS--14

Abraham
Ashcroft
Biden
Breaux
Collins
DeWine
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Roth
Santorum
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli

NAYS--84

Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Stevens
Thomas

[[Page S6770]]

Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Daschle
Hutchinson

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 14, the nays are
84. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.

Vote on Amendment No. 3844

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Feingold
amendment No. 3844. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``aye.''
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.]

YEAS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--54

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Daschle
Hutchinson

The amendment (No. 3844) was rejected.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote On Motion To Commit

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
commit.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``no''.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--45

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Daschle
Hutchinson

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today I was necessarily absent while
attending to a family member's medical condition during Senate action
on rollcall votes 189 through 193.
Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On
rollcall vote No. 189, Senator Kerry's amendment No. 3839, to establish
a National Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to
provide for the development of decent, safe, and affordable housing for
low-income families, I would have voted aye.
On rollcall vote No. 190, the motion to waive the Budget Act with
respect to Senator Santorum's Amendment No. 3838, to provide for the
designation of renewal communities and to provide tax incentives
relating to such communities, to provide a tax credit to taxpayers
investing in entities seeking to provide capital to create new markets
in low-income communities, and to provide for the establishment of
Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), and for other purposes, I would
have voted no.
On rollcall vote No. 191, the motion to waive the Budget Act with
respect to my and Senator Wellstones amendment. No. 3837, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption
and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, to
increase, expand, and simplify the child and dependent care tax credit,
to expand the adoption credit for special needs children, provide
incentives for employer-provided child care, and for other purposes, I
would have voted aye.
On rollcall vote No. 192, Senator Harkin's amendment No. 3840, to
protect and provide resources for the Social Security System, to amend
title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the ``motherhood
penalty,'' increase the widow's and widower's benefit and to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit exemption
and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction, and for
other purposes, I would have voted aye.
On rollcall vote No. 193, Senator Bayh's amendment No. 3843 to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit
exemption and the qualified family-owned business interest deduction
and provide a long-term care credit, and for other purposes, I would
have voted aye.

amendment no. 3838

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, while I am sympathetic to the goals of the
Santorum amendment and I strongly support some of its provisions, I
must vote against it at this time.
The amendment offered by the Senator is 251 pages long and has 12
titles. It includes new tax incentives and new authorization programs.
Some of the incentives are new starters that have never been considered
before. While the amendment is based on an agreement that has been
announced by the Speaker's Office and the White House, that specific
agreement has not been finalized, introduced, or considered by the
House of Representatives.
A few weeks ago, Senator Santorum introduced a slightly smaller
version of

[[Page S6771]]

his amendment as a bill. That bill, S. 2779, was referred to the
Finance Committee. Our Committee has held no hearings on the bill and
we have not marked it up. The Joint Committee on Taxation has not had a
chance to offer its comments on the full package or formally to tell us
how much it costs. The Administration has not provided us with its
views. Since the bill was introduced, my staff has been contacted by a
variety of groups asking for technical changes to make the tax
incentives operate better.
My colleagues know that I am a strong supporter of some of the
provisions in the amendment. Increases in the low income housing credit
cap and the private activity bond volume cap are long overdue. Tax
credits for individual development accounts are a new and promising
concept that I included in last year's tax bill. Nevertheless, I
believe that the proper course is for the Finance Committee to take the
time to review and evaluate all the provisions of this amendment.
Accordingly, I will vote against it at this time.

amendment no. 3838

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it contains
language that raises serious First Amendment questions regarding the
separation of church and state.
This amendment basically allows taxpayer dollars to flow to religious
institutions, such as churches, mosques, and synagogues, to administer
social services and public health benefits on behalf of our federal
government. I believe this provision is Constitutionally suspect and
requires more thoughtful Congressional scrutiny in the form of hearings
and public discussion. Instead, this dubious language has been slipped
into a several-hundred page amendment that few, if any, of my Senate
colleagues have probably read.
Unlike the charitable choice provision in the 1996 welfare reform
act, which applies to a very limited number of social service programs,
this language would expand the scope of ``charitable choice'' to every
current and future public health and social service program that
receives federal funds. This new charitable choice language also would
go further by allowing religious institutions receiving taxpayer
dollars to discriminate in their hiring and firing decisions on the
basis of their particular religious beliefs and teachings, abrogating
the intent of our nation's civil rights laws.
Thus, under this particular provision, persons hired with federal
taxpayer money, notwithstanding their personal religious beliefs, could
be fired because they did not abide by particular religious standards,
such as regular church attendance, tithing, or perhaps abstinence from
coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. This new language could allow a
federally funded employee to be fired because she remarried without
seeking an annulment of her first marriage. This seemingly innocuous
``charitable choice'' language amounts to federally funded employment
discrimination, and allows religious organizations supported by
taxpayer money to exclude people of different tenets, teachings and
faiths from government-funded employment.
I would also like to address a point made by Senator Santorum last
evening regarding Vice President Gore's support of ``charitable
choice.'' Senator Santorum failed to mention that in a speech given in
May 1999 by the Vice President, he stated that any charitable choice
``extension must be accompanied by clear and strict safeguards.'' He
also said that ``government must never promote a particular religious
view, or try to force anyone to receive faith.'' This amendment fails
on both accounts.
There is a tradition in Rhode Island of religious tolerance and
respect for the boundaries between religion and government. Indeed,
Roger Williams, who was banished from Massachusetts for his religious
beliefs, founded Providence in 1636. The colony served as a refuge
where all could come to worship as their conscience dictated without
interference from the state. With that background, I believe that we
should be very careful to maintain the distinction between government
and religion. They both have important roles to play, especially in
helping some of our country's neediest citizens. However, if a church
or mosque is going to accept taxpayer dollars to perform contractual
government services, they should not be able to deny employment to
qualified American citizens. Our nation's laws should not allow
discrimination on the basis of religion.
I suspect that the drafters of the amendment understand the
Constitutional infirmities of their language. They seek some protection
by inserting a reference to the ``Establishment Clause in the First
Amendment'' as a check on permissible programs. However, such an
approach blithely ignores the succeeding words of the same sentence.
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' (emphasis added).

Their use of the Establishment Clause is a transparent ploy to dress
up dubious legislation in the trappings of the Constitution without
giving effect to the full meaning of the Constitution. The proposed
legislation raises serious questions about the ``free exercise'' of
religion. By imposing religious tests on federally funded employment
and by condoning religious based treatment regimes paid for by public
funds which may conflict with the religious beliefs of beneficiaries,
this legislation severely impinges on the ``free exercise'' of
conscience.
With specific regard to the religious beliefs of beneficiaries, the
drafters try to salvage this amendment from the Constitutional morass
that they have created. They purport to require governmental entities
to provide access to an ``alternative'' service provider if an
individual objects to the religious character of the service provider.
Having abandoned the Constitution, the amendment now abandons reality.
In a country with insufficient resources to fully treat and serve all
who qualify for public services, where are these alternative service
providers? We are all familiar with the long waiting lists for
substance abuse treatment, just to name one area of concern. We are
equally familiar with situations in many areas, both rural and urban,
where there is only one realistic provider. How available can any
alternative provider be in practice? Moreover, why should a qualified
beneficiary have to advance a ``religious'' reason as a condition to
receiving public benefits?
Unfortunately, the enactment of the ``charitable choice'' language in
this amendment will result in expensive and time-consuming
Constitutional litigation, bogging down the passage of its laudatory
community renewal provisions.
Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment
and to vote against federally supported religious discrimination.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be included
at the appropriate place in the Record.

amendment no. 3838

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I believe in the importance of the
New Markets initiative to promote growth and economic development in
struggling communities across our country. I have worked closely with
Senator Robb on this effort, as well as the President and his
Administration. Given the commitment of President Clinton and Speaker
Hastert, I believe we may have a real chance to enact meaningful
legislation on New Markets.
But I do not believe the Santorum amendment is the right starting
point. I have serious questions about the provisions in the bill
labeled ``Charitable Choice.'' While I strongly support and admire the
community development and social service work performed by faith-based
organizations, I am deeply troubled by the potential for discrimination
in hiring on the basis of an applicant's faith with programs funded by
federal dollars. This is not good public policy.
Senator Robb has announced his intention to introduce another New
Markets bill, and I will continue to work closely with the
distinguished Senator from Virginia. We introduced the original New
Markets bill in August of 1999, and I am committed to working for
passage of a final package. But such an important initiative deserves
consideration in the Finance Committee, and more than ten minutes of
flood debate.
West Virginia has several Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities,
including Huntington, McDowell County, the Central Appalachia Community
and the Upper Kanawha Community. These communities are working hard

[[Page S6772]]

to deliver on the promise of the President's economic development
initiative, and I am proud of our progress. Together we can make a real
difference.
I hope that the Santorum amendment will not prevail, but that Members
will work together to build on the Clinton-Hastert initiative to
develop vital legislation to promote New Markets. We should provide tax
incentives to promote new investments. We should expand on the success
of Empowerment Zones and create new Renewal Communities to help small
businesses get started in struggling communities. We should invest in
affordable housing by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and
promote home ownership by expanding Mortgage Revenue Bonds. We should
make these strategic investments, but not include language that might
allow discrimination in hiring practices which would cause controversy
and hinder the important investments of New Markets.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, during debate of H.R. 8, the question has
been raised: Does the death tax really impact family-owned farms and
businesses?
The answer is an emphatic ``Yes!''
According to the book, ``The Millionaire Next Door,'' self-employed
individuals are four times as likely to accumulate $1 million in assets
over their lifetime than those people who work for someone else.
Moreover, while self-employed individuals make up only 20 percent of
the workforce, they comprise two-thirds of those Americans whose
estates are worth more than $1 million. As a tax on accumulated wealth,
the estate tax is a direct attack on these individuals.
Meanwhile, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy
estimates that seven out of ten family-owned businesses fail to survive
from one generation to the next. While this failure rate can be
attributed to many factors, the federal estate tax is cited by family
business owners as a major obstacle blocking a successful transition.
For example, a report by the Family Enterprise Institute found that 60
percent of black business owners believe the estate tax makes the
survival of their business significantly more difficult or impossible.
Finally, the estate tax hampers the ability of family-owned
businesses to compete against larger corporations. In testimony before
the House Ways and Means Committee, a lumberyard owner from New Jersey
spoke of incurring up to $1 million in costs associated with preserving
the family business pending the death of his grandmother. At the same
time the family was incurring these costs, the business was also
competing against a new Home Depot store that had moved into the area.
Home Depot is not subject to the estate tax.
Mr. President, death tax repeal is also pro-jobs. A survey of 365
businesses in upstate New York found an estimated 14 jobs per business
were lost in direct consequence of the costs associated with estate tax
planning and payment. That amounts to more than 5,000 jobs lost in a
limited geographical area. Nationally, the Wall Street Journal reported
that an estimated 200,000 jobs would be created or preserved if the
estate tax were eliminated.
Mr. President, a false argument made by the opposition is that the
tax code already protects family-owned businesses from the death tax.
While the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act included provisions to protect
family-owned businesses from the death tax, these provisions have
proven so complicated and cumbersome that few family businesses choose
to use them.
For example, in order to qualify for the Family Business Exclusion,
an heir has to have worked in the family business for at least five of
the eight years leading up to the death of the owner. Following the
death of the owner, the family must continue to participate in the
business for at least five out of eight years.
Both these restrictions create significant problems for family
members. How does a son or daughter know when the eight-year ``clock''
starts ticking. If their parents are elderly, do they sacrifice going
to college in order to begin working in the business? Moreover, once
the business is transferred, the tax deferred by receiving the
Qualified Family Business designation hangs over the business for at
least eight years, affecting the ability of the business to attain
credit or attract investors.
Similar difficulties have been realized from other carve-outs. For
example, Section 2032A allows closely-held farms and businesses to
receive a valuation based upon the property's current use--say
farming--rather than its ``highest and best'' use--say commercial
development.
In order to qualify for the lower valuation, however, the estate and
heirs must meet qualifications similar to those required for the Family
Business Exclusion. Despite the obvious benefits, only a small
fraction--less than one percent in 1992--of taxable estates elect to
use it. The provision is simply too complicated for widespread use.
With regard to the death tax, it is proving very difficult to protect
one set of assets while taxing another. A good-faith attempt was made
to protect family-owned businesses from the death tax three years ago,
but by most accounts that attempt has largely failed. The best way to
protect family farms and businesses from the death tax is to repeal it.
I have a paper by Bill Beach of the Heritage Foundation summarizing
just a few of the real life stories of farms and businesses harmed by
the death tax. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered. (See
exhibit 2.)
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, repealing the estate tax is one of the more
populist tax cuts considered by Congress this session. Not only do
studies show the estate tax has a dramatic impact on the ability of
family-owned farms and businesses to survive and create job
opportunities, survey after survey has revealed that 70 to 80 percent
of Americans in general are critical of the tax and supportive of its
repeal. This broad-based support is evident in the number of states
that have acted to repeal their state-level estate taxes. Since 1980,
more than 20 states have elected to repeal their estate taxes.
Mr. President, there is no excuse for continuing a tax that
confiscates capital from our most productive citizens. It's anti-
growth. It's anti-jobs. It's anti-American.
Mr. President, it's time to bury the death tax.

Exhibit 1

Death Tax Devastation: Horror Stories From Middle-Class America

(By William W. Beach, Director, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage
Foundation)

The death tax is the nightmare of the American dream, as
these real-life experiences from middle-class America will
show.
Millions of Americans spend their adult lives working hard,
sacrificing and saving, obeying the law, and doing the
countless other things that official Washington has told them
are the ingredients of a successful life. They are encouraged
as federal laws are passed that should expand economic
opportunity and guarantee that civil rights will be as much
as part of the marketplace as they are a part of community
life and education. Thousands of political speeches reinforce
the impression they have that Washington believes the United
States really is a land of opportunity and a place where the
financial fruits of hard work can be used to endow the next
generation's economic struggle with greater potential.
However, for those whose economic success also resulted in
significant assets (like a farm, a small business, a factory,
or a trucking fleet), what official Washington says is
nothing less than a lie. At the end of life, the federal
death tax will sweep across the profits of family-owned
businesses and estates and leave in its wake millions of
devastated survivors, employees, and communities. Many people
whose assets will be depleted to pay the death tax
unfortunately learn about estate and gift taxes so late in
life that they spend their last days as frequently in the
company of their tax lawyers and accountants as they do with
their families.
The federal government taxes the transfer of wealth between
generations at rates as high as 55 percent. At $30 billion
dollars, the death tax burden in the United States is the
greatest in the world. Indeed, this country owns the dubious
distinction of holding the fruits of economic success in
lower regard than many of its ideological and economic
adversaries.
The full case for repealing federal death taxes will
involve more than testimony from its victims. However,
evidence of harm to the U.S. economy and public finances
pales in comparison to the stories of the men and women whose
economic virtues regrettably laid the basis for their own and
their offspring's financial devastation. The following
sampling of evidence from that anecdotal record has been
compiled from testimony before Congress, newspaper articles,
and statements of family members whose lives were changed by
federal death taxes.

[[Page S6773]]

the death tax hurts family farms and ranches

The death tax destroys family businesses and farms, and
forces families to spend their hard-earned money on lawyers,
accountants, and life insurance policies to deal with it. The
Public Policy Institute of New York found a negative
relationship between anticipated death tax liability and
growth in employment, particularly for growing firms.
Business owners are afraid to hire new people and expand
their businesses when they face the death tax. The reason is
simple: Hiring new people is optional; paying taxes on the
family estate is not.

Family Farm Horror Story #1

Tim Koopman's family has owned ranch property in California
for most of this century. His children would like to continue
to run the ranch, but the death tax may prevent this.
Since Tim's mother died four years ago, the Koopman's have
paid about $400,000 in death taxes. For three of those years,
however, Tim has been able only to pay the interest on the
death tax bill, and soon he will not be able to pay that
without selling some or all of his land. This is a decision
that he does not want to face. This land is an important part
of his life.
The Koopman's faced the death tax once before. In 1973, Tim
was forced to sell one of the family's ranches to pay the
$125,000 death tax bill that he owed when his father died.
Now the family faces the death tax again. Tim wants to pass
the ranch on to his children, but the hefty death tax may
leave little ranch for him to do so.

Family Farm Horror Story #2

Lee Ann's family owns a ranch in Idaho. They have lived
there for three generations, providing jobs for the local
economy and helping to create a strong community. The family
did not acquire a lot of material wealth, so it came as a
great shock when the government hit them with a $3.3 million
death tax bill after their father's death.
Although the death of Lee Ann's father was devastating, the
death tax bill made it worse. The family had no debts and
owned their land outright; they thought they had nothing to
tax. However, their land had increased in value enough to
trigger the death tax. Lee Ann's mother, who has been under
tremendous strain since her husband's death, is haunted by
the realization that after she dies, her family may lose the
ranch because of this tax.
Another concern is who will buy the ranch if they are
forced to sell. Lee Ann worries that, as is the case with so
many other properties, the purchaser will not be another
family rancher, but rather a wealthy absentee owner who flies
in once or twice a year for a vacation. This has been
happening more frequently in Idaho, and the sense of
community that Lee Ann enjoyed for most of her life is
quickly being lost.

Family Farm Horror Story #3

Robert Sakata is a 42-year-old vegetable farmer from
Brighton, Colorado. Back in 1944 his father paid $6,000 for
40 acres of land to begin a family farm. Six years later, he
purchased additional land for $700 an acre. Today, the elder
Sakata is 73 and owns 2,000 acres of farmland near the Denver
International Airport--a piece of land worth nearly $380
million.
This might seem like a wonderful situation for the Sakata
family, yet the family owns no other investments; after the
elder Sakata and his wife pass away, Robert will face a tax
bill of over $200 million. Robert has admitted that he would
have to sell off half the farm and lay off many of his 350
workers ``who are like family.'' ``We don't live like
millionaires,'' Robert has stated. ``We're just trying to
sustain a family business.''
They will have a difficult time. the death tax will force
them to lay off workers and sell land that has been part of
the family for more than five decades. This treatment of
hardworking successful citizens is hardly the story line for
an American dream.

THE DEATH TAX THREAT TO FAMILY BUSINESSES

The Center for the Study of Taxation found that three out
of four families faced with liquidating all or part of their
business to pay the death tax would have to cut their payroll
in the process. Moreover, studies by the Institute for Policy
Innovation (IPI) and Congress's own Joint Economic Committee
have found that the death tax costs communities more in lost
jobs and lower economic growth than it raises for the U.S.
Treasury.

Family Business Horror Story #1

After her father's death from cancer, Terry Deeny, like
many Americans, could not reflect on her personal loss, spend
time with her family, and build family cohesion. Instead,
death taxes forced Terry to concern herself with her family's
survival. As Chairman and CEO of Deeny Construction Co.,
Terry watched as payment of the death taxes drove her company
deeply into debt. She had no choice but to lay workers off,
sell much of the company machinery, and stop many business
transactions that had kept the business alive. ``We barely
survived. It was not an American dream; it was an American
nightmare.''
It is hard for people like Terry to find justification for
the federal government to force Americans to scrounge for
money in order to pay a tax that puts many into debt,
especially when the money otherwise could be used to help
create jobs and enable even more citizens to achieve the
American dream.

Family Business Horror Story #2

Barry, an entrepreneur in Kentucky, likens the death tax to
the old saying about sheep: Slaughter your sheep and you will
get dinner for a night. Shear it and you will get a lifetime
of wool. By endangering the future of his family's business,
the death tax is threatening his employees' livelihoods as
well as costing the government future revenue.
For three generations, Barry's family ran their own
business in Kentucky. Today, they own 20 gas stations and
convenience stores and employ about 100 people. However,
Barry's father is growing older and would like to pass on the
business.
According to Barry, the family has spent a significant
amount of money on accountants and attorneys in preparation
for shifting ownership of the businesses from his father to
Barry's generation and the grandchildren. Family members have
purchased insurance and have gone through rewriting several
wills and trusts. ``It's something you continually update,''
Barry says; ``every time a new grandchild is born, we have to
revise the will and trusts.''
The death tax also affects the ability of Barry's
businesses to grow. New opportunities take time to develop,
but between worrying about how to pay the death tax and meet
other federal regulations, Barry finds it is harder to pursue
new opportunities. In the end, the businesses and their
communities suffer.

Family Business Horror Story #3

Clarence owns a farming and lumber business in North
Carolina. He provides jobs to 70 people in the community who
work on his three small farms, in his fertilizer and tobacco
warehouse, and at a small lumber mill. His family has worked
hard for four generations to build the business. However, all
this may be lost when Clarence dies and his family is faced
with enormous death tax bill.
Clarence has tried to reduce the burden of the death tax.
He has intentionally slowed the growth of his business, hired
lawyers, purchased life insurance, and established trusts--
all to create a plan that he hopes will enable his children
to keep the family business when he dies.
But all that work and planning may not be enough. Clarence
figures that his son will owe the federal government about
$1.5 million upon his death--a difficult sum for most people
to raise, but especially so for a man who makes $31,000 a
year. It will be impossible for his son to pay that much, so
he may have to sell all or part of the business. It would be
the fourth time that Clarence's family will have had to pay
the death tax. The federal government, in the end, will have
destroyed the work of four generations.

Family Business Horror Story #4

Everett has been in the newspaper business for 30 years.
His company publishes six weekly papers in northern
California and the telephone directory for two counties. He
employs 97 people. From his first small weekly paper, Everett
has built his company into a $3 million business.
Nevertheless, all the hard work may be for naught.
Everett's wife died two years ago, and he placed her share of
the corporate stock in a trust for their daughter. His
daughter and her husband, who is the publisher for all the
business's publications, will still face a hefty death tax
that may cause them to lose the business when Everett dies.
For years, the number of small, family-owned weeklies has
been declining in northern California. The people who work
for the weeklies and the small towns that depend on these
newspapers for information and entertainment will suffer when
these businesses shut down. Abolishing the death tax would
help preserve the legacy of hard work and dedication that
thousands of families like Everett's have given to their
communities.

Family Business Horror Story #4

Wayne Williams' family has owned a telecommunications and
video communications business in Washington since 1982. The
family's philosophy is that it is important to reinvest
profits in employees, new products, and expanding
opportunities. The company has maintained a commitment to
improving the local community and tied most of its financial
worth up in the business. That means Wayne does not have the
cash on hand to pay the death tax when his parents die.
So Wayne has had to take other measures to save his family
from the devastation of the death tax, including scheduling
gifts, buying life insurance, and slowing reinvestment in the
firm. This last action does not mesh well with the family's
philosophy of reinvesting profits, but the death tax makes it
necessary.
The fact that thousands of family businesses are in the
same fix explains why eliminating the death tax is the number
one priority of so many owners of small businesses. It also
could explain why a majority of Americans agree that the
death tax is simply unfair and should be eliminated.

Family Business Horror Story #5

David Pankonin, whose story first appeared in the Wall
Street Journal, is the fourth-generation owner of Pankonin's
Inc., in Nebraska. David's great-grandfather established this
retail farm equipment company in 1883 in Louisville,
Nebraska. The business has been handed down there times
through the family, and David hopes that some day he will be
able to hand it down to his own son. He worries because the
odds--and the estate tax laws--are against him.

[[Page S6774]]

Only 30 percent of businesses survive a first
intergenerational transfer. Only 4 percent survive to the
next generation. A third transfer--the transfer that put
Pankonin's in David's hands--usually has survival odds of
less than 1 percent. Now David wonders if the business can
survive another transfer. In his words, ``Will I be able to
pass the company inherited from my father along to my son or,
in spite of what my will might say, am I just working hard to
pay an heir called Uncle Sam?''

THE DEATH TAX THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

When people think about the death tax, they tend to focus
on its devastating effect on family businesses and farms.
However, the death tax also hurts the environment. Many
landowners, especially those in rural areas, are ``land rich,
but cash poor.'' If the owner of a family business dies, the
heirs often will have to sell their assets because they do
not have enough money to pay the death tax. Since land is
valued at its ``highest and best use,'' they must sell to
developers in order to raise the necessary cash.

Impact on the Environment Case #1

The Hilliard family is a good example of how the death tax
hurts the environment. The family was forced to sell 17,000
acres of land in southern Florida to developers to pay its
death tax bills. So far, 12,000 acres have been developed;
the rest will soon follow. The family did not intend to sell
the land before the death tax bill and had not made plans to
develop it.
The Hilliard's land is in the heart of Florida panther
habitat. The panther, an endangered species, requires a large
amount of land to survive. The death tax indirectly threatens
the panther's habitat every time it forces local Florida's
landowners to sell their land to real estate developers.
Today, over 75 percent of species listed under the
Endangered Species Act rely on privately owned land for some
or all of their habitat. The death tax creates a huge burden
for those that wish to keep their land undeveloped.

TAX AVOIDANCE

Historically, the death tax brings in only about 1 percent
of total federal revenues. Yet, the costs to administer and
collect the death tax, including litigation, as well as the
costs of its economic effects can add up to 65 cents on every
dollar collected. That means net revenue collected from this
onerous tax is just nearly one-third of the total tax
collected.
According to the Institute for Policy Innovation, the death
tax costs the economy almost as much as it raises for the
federal government. This is because the death tax harms the
most potent engine of growth in the economy--America's small
businesses and their employees. The IPI study found that if
Congress repealed the death tax today, the increase in
economic growth that resulted from this reform would replace
any loss to the U.S. Treasury by the year 2010.
A 1996 Heritage Foundation analysis of death taxes using
the WEFA Group U.S. Macroeconomic Model and the Washington
University Macro Model found that, if the estate tax had been
repealed in 1996, then over the next nine years: The U.S.
economy would average as much as $11 billion per year in
extra output; an average of 145,000 additional job could be
created each year; personal income could rise by an average
of $8 billion per year above the current projections; and the
extra revenue generated by the additional growth in the
economy would more than compensate for the meager revenue
losses stemming from the death tax's repeal.

Wasted Resources Case #1

Robert, an entrepreneur, began investing in Northern
California real estate early in life, making large profits
from the resale of his land. He used the profits to invest in
a vineyard in Napa Valley that now has a fair market value of
$20 million.
Robert planned on leaving the vineyard to his children. Two
of his three children work on the vineyard already and they
would like to continue to do so. However, Robert is afraid
that when he dies he is going to have to leave all that he
has worked hard to build to the federal government, rather
than to his children. To make sure his legacy lives on,
Robert has spent approximately $50,000 on legal, accounting,
and appraisal bills.
He is also making annual $10,000 gifts to his children and
has given away 45 percent of his winery to his children. He
has changed his company from a sole proprietorship to a
limited liability company, and has formed a family limited
partnership for the vineyards.

Wasted Resources Case #2

Richard Forrestel, Jr., of Akron, New York, has spent a
substantial amount of time and effort to avoid the
devastation wrought by the death tax. Forrestel's father
founded Cold Spring Construction Company. Forrestel stated
that, ``My family's construction company has already wasted
over $4 million 1980 in insurance purchases and stock
redemptions solely in order to be able to pay the death
tax.'' ``I wish death tax proponents would tell the truth--
they simply want to redistribute wealth,'' continues
Forrestel. ``The American dream of my father should not be
broken up and sent to Washington when he dies.''
Each day, hundreds of Americans spend more and more money
in an attempt to shelter as much of their estate as possible
from taxation after they pass away, so that their offspring
can benefit from their years of hard work. This money could
have been reinvested into the company, creating more jobs and
helping more Americans in their daily lives, but the death
tax makes this almost impossible.

Wasted Resources Case #3

Ronald works at a steel manufacturing plant his father
started in Philadelphia in 1952. Its stainless steel plate
products are sold to other manufacturers for various uses.
Ronald and his brother have been working with their father to
develop an estate plan to smooth the transition of ownership
from the second generation to the third.
However, this task has been difficult. Ronald does not have
55 percent of his business assets in cash so, that he can pay
off the death tax bill when his father dies. So, he has to
spend his precious time and money on lawyers and insurance
agents. He has to stop the growth of his plant to ensure he
can pay the tax bill. The death tax means that Ronald cannot
buy a new price of equipment or hire a new employee because
he must spend his extra money on lawyer's fees.

Wasted Resources Case #4

Helen and her husband dreamed of owning a community
newspaper. After years of planning, they finally realized
their dream in 1965 and bought a small, struggling weekly
paper in northern Georgia. They invested all their savings
and have turned that small paper into a $2 million business
that publishes three other weeklies as well.
Helen is worried that all of their hard work will go to
waste when she and her husband die. She would like to pass
the business on to her sons, but she may not be able to if
the government hands her a 55 percent death tax bill. Her
family has spent thousands of dollars already in legal fees
to ensure she can pass her business on as she and her husband
hope, but this still may not happen. The 55 percent death tax
will be levied on the family estate despite all the corporate
and personal taxes they have paid through the years.

Wasted Resources Case #5

The family business of Michael Coyne has lasted through
three generations across 67 years. What started as a small
New Jersey lumber company in 1932 has grown into three home
improvement stores and a separate kitchen and bath store.
However, the same business that made it through the ravages
of the Great Depression and the shortages of World War II may
not survive the death tax.
Michael's experience with death taxes began 10 years ago
when his grandfather passed away. The majority of the estate
was left to his grandmother; though they obtained appropriate
legal representation and death tax planning, it became clear
that the business would not survive after his grandmother's
death.
Michael and his family have contributed more than just
stability to their community for generations. They employ 70
people, and they have paid all their taxes. Yet for the past
10 years, they have been forced to spend over $1 million on
life insurance policies, lawyers, accountants, and other
efforts to protect the business from the death tax. Despite
these efforts, the family faces a death tax bill in the
millions of dollars. The business might not survive.

conclusion

Even though many countries such as Australia and Canada do
not have a death tax, the United States continues to reserve
its highest marginal tax rate of 55 percent for estates that
involve family farms and businesses. The lowest rate imposed
by Washington (37 percent) is nearly twice the average death
tax rate of 21.6 percent in 24 other countries that do impose
death taxes. And while most countries impose a top rate on
estates of $4 million or more, the top death tax rate in this
country is imposed on estates valued $3 million or more. This
policy is wrong in a country that built its future on the
idea that with enough hard work and determination anyone
could move up the economic ladder.
By eliminating the death tax, Congress could put more money
in the pockets of Americans who in turn, would give more to
their favorite charities and to their communities during
their life times as well as after death. While the death tax
was supposed to be a tax on the rich, American families who
work hard to build a family business or farm and their
employees of are the ones most often left paying the bill.
The mathematics are simple: The tax rate on a worker who
loses his other job as a result of the death tax is 100
percent. Clearly, with estimates of the federal budget
surplus now exceeding $1.87 trillion over the next ten years,
it's time to do away with this faulty tax policy.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in Vermont, small businesses and family
farms form the backbone of our economy. I have always been a strong
supporter of targeted estate tax relief for these family-owned farms
and small businesses. Targeted relief would help families in Vermont
keep their property intact and in the family.
What we have are two very different approaches to estate tax relief.
Under the Republican proposal, H.R. 8, relief from the estate tax
would be phased in gradually over ten years and the initial benefits
would be directed towards the wealthiest estates, those valued at over
$20 million. Under this proposal, not a single small business or family
farm would be removed from

[[Page S6775]]

the tax next year or even 9 years from now. That is because H.R. 8 does
not actually repeal the estate tax until the next decade. This proposal
would cost American taxpayers $105 billion in the first ten years and
$50 billion in each year after that.
Under the second proposal, the Democratic Alternative put forth by
Senator Moynihan, thousands of additional farms and small businesses
would be exempt from the estate tax in the very first year after its
enactment. Under the Democratic Alternative, business owners and
farmers would be able to leave $2 million per individual and $4 million
per couple without paying estate tax in 2001. By 2010, business owner's
and farmer's assets totaling $8 million would be exempt. This proposal
would cost approximately $64 billion over 10 years.
We now have a choice between a proposal that would provide immediate
relief to small business owners and farmers at a cost we can afford and
a fiscally irresponsible measure that would provide a windfall to the
wealthiest estates at a high cost to Vermonters and the American
public. I choose the affordable, immediate, targeted relief that we
have with the Democratic proposal--a proposal that I believe is a
better deal for Vermonters.
The Republicans have stated that H.R. 8 is designed primarily to help
small businesses and family farms. But who would benefit the most from
this proposal? I think an article on the front page of the Business
Section of today's New York Times sums it up well, and I ask unanimous
consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. The New York Times article said that had the estate tax
been repealed in 1997, as the Republicans now propose, more than half
of the tax savings would have gone to the slightly more than 400
individuals who died that year leaving estates valued at $20 million or
more. Only about 400 estates in the entire nation, Mr. President.
In other words, under the Republican proposal, once again, only the
wealthiest individuals would reap the majority of the benefits. Only
gradually would any benefits trickle down to the small business owners
and farmers who Republicans are professing to help. Under the
Republican proposal hard working Vermonters would bear the burden of a
windfall to the wealthy.
In Vermont, in 1998, 227 estates were subject to the estate tax. If
the Republican proposal were adopted in 1997, not a single one of those
estates would have been removed from the rolls in the following year.
Under the Democratic Alternative, small business owners and farmers
would have received immediate relief. When all is said and done, with
the Democratic Alternative, approximately two-thirds of all estates
would not be subject to the estate tax.
Do we want relief for our farmers and small business owners now, at a
cost we can afford? Or do we want an unworkable partisan solution that
will lead inevitably to a presidential veto, endless debate, and empty
campaign slogans? I think that Vermonters deserve the immediate relief
that is available under the Democratic proposal, relief that would keep
small businesses and family owned farms intact, relief that is balanced
and affordable.

Exhibit No. 1

[From the New York Times, July 13, 2000]

Democrats' Estate Tax Plan Is Little Known

(By David Cay Johnston)

Small business owners and farmers whose Washington
lobbyists are ardent backers of a Republican-backed plan to
repeal the estate tax seem largely unaware that President
Clinton--who has vowed to veto the Republican proposal--has
said he would sign legislation that would exempt nearly all
of them from the tax staring next year.
Business owners and farmers would be allowed to leave $2
million--$4 million for a couple--to their heirs without
paying estate taxes under the plan favored by the President
and the Democratic leadership in Congress. The Republican
proposal, which passed the House last month with some
Democrats' support and is being debated in the Senate this
week, would be phased in slowly, with the tax eliminated in
2009.
Supporters of the Republican plan say the tax is so
complicated that eliminating it is the only effective reform;
they argue that the nation's growing wealth means more
estates will steadily fall under the tax if it remains law on
the Democratic proposal's terms.
Still, had the Democratic plan been law in 1997, the last
year for which estate tax return data is available from the
Internal Revenue Service, the estates of fewer than 1,300
owners of closely held businesses and 300 farmers would have
owed the tax.
According to the data, 95 percent of the roughly 6,000
farmers who paid estate tax that year would have been
exempted under terms of the Democrats' plan, as would 88
percent of the roughly 10,000 small-business owners who paid
the tax.
Had the estate tax been repealed in 1997, as the
Republicans now propose, more than half of the tax savings
would have gone to the slightly more than 400 individuals who
died that year leaving individual estates worth more than $20
million each.
Two prominent experts on estate taxes said yesterday that
the Democrats were offering a much better deal to small-
business owners and farmers, because the relief under their
bill would be immediate and the estate tax would be
eliminated for nearly all of them.
``The fact is that the Democrats are making the better
offer--and I'm a Republican saying that,'' said Sanford J.
Schlesinger of the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays &
Handler in New York. With routine estate planning, he said,
the $4 million exemption could effectively be raised to as
much as $10 million in wealth that could be passed untaxed to
heirs. Only 1,221 of the 2.3 million people who died in 1997
left a taxable estate of $10 million or more, I.R.S. data
shows.
Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist who is a
leading estate tax adviser to Midwest farmers, said that only
a handful of working family farms had a net worth of $4
million. ``Above that, with a very few exceptions, you are
talking about the Ted Turners who own huge ranches and are
not working farmers,'' he said.
Mr. Harl said he was surprised that farmers were not
calling lawmakers to demand that they take the president up
on his promise to sign the Democratic bill.
One reason for that may be that in leading the call for
repeal of the tax, two organizations representing merchants
and farmers--the National Federation of Independent Business
and the American Farm Bureau Federation--have done little to
tell members about the Democratic plan. Interviews this week
with half a dozen people whom the two organizations offered
as spokesmen on the estate tax showed that only one of them
had any awareness of the Democratic proposal.
Officials of the business federation and the farm bureau
said that in the event full repeal failed, they might push
for approval of the Democratic plan. But both groups say
outright repeal makes more sense.
``My concern is not over the Bill Gateses of the world,''
said Jim Hirni, a Senate lobbyist for the business
federation. ``But we have to eliminate this tax, because it
is too complicated to comply with the rules. Instead of
further complicating the system, the best way is to eliminate
the tax, period.''
A farm bureau spokesman, Christopher Noun, said that the
Democrats' plan appeared to grant benefits that would erode
over time. ``Farmers are not cash wealthy, they are asset
wealthy,'' he said. ``And those assets are only going to
continue to gain value over the years. So while some farmers
may not be taxed now under the other plan--10 or 15 years out
they will.''
Whether the proposal to repeal the tax dies in the Senate
or is passed and then vetoed by the President, it will become
a powerful tool for both parties in the fall elections. The
Republicans will be able to paint themselves as tax
cutters who would carry out their plans if they could just
win the White House and more seats in Congress. The
Democrats could try to paint the Republicans as the party
that abandoned Main Street merchants and family to serve
the interests of billionaires.
A vote in the Senate could come as early as this evening.
At the grass roots, however, those who would benefit from
any reduction in the scope of the estate tax take a much more
pragmatic view of the matter.
``The whole reason I took up this cause is I do not want to
see another small family business get into the situation we
are in,'' said Mark Sincavage, a land developer in the Pocono
Mountains of Pennsylvania whose family expects to sell some
raw land soon to pay a $600,000 estate tax bill to the
federal and state governments.
The independent business federation cited Mr. Sincavage's
situation as an especially good example of problems the
estate tax causes its members who are asset rich but short on
cash. Facing similar circumstances is John H. Kearney, a Ford
and Lincoln dealer in Ravena, N.Y., who said he ``got slammed
pretty hard'' when his father died last year. Most of his
father's $1.6 million estate was in land and the car
dealership, said Mr. Kearney, who added that he dipped into
savings intended for his children's education to pay the
estate tax bill.
Neither Mr. Sincavage nor Mr, Kearney said he was aware of
the Democrats' plan to roll back the tax.
But Mr. Kearney said his interest was in reasonable tax
relief so that merchants and farmers could continue to
nurture their businesses, not in helping billionaires.
``No part of me has any sympathy for people with more than
$5 million,'' he said. ``Would I feel terrible if all they
did was raise the exemption to $4 million or $5 million? I
would say from my selfish standpoint

[[Page S6776]]

that we have covered the small family farm and small business
and thus we achieved what we wanted to achieve.
``But I would still be asking: Is it really a moral tax to
begin with? And that's a point you can argue a hundred
different ways.''
Carl Loop, 72, who owns a wholesale decorative-plant
nursery in Jacksonville, Fla., said he favored repeal, partly
because estate tax planning was fraught with uncertainty.
``The complexity of it keeps a lot of people from doing
estate planning because they don't understand it,'' Mr. Loop
said. ``And they don't like the fact that they have to give
up ownership of property whole they are alive.''
Professor Harl, the Iowa State University estate tax
expert, said that he had heard many horror stories about
people having to sell farms to pay estate taxes. But in 35
years of conducting estate tax seminars for farmers, he
added, ``I have pushed and hunted and probed and I have not
been able to find a single case where estate taxes caused the
sale of a family farm; it's a myth.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Death Tax
Elimination Act of 2000. The time has come to stop death from being a
taxable event.
The repeal of the Federal death tax is one of the top priorities for
tax reform in my home State of Wyoming. The reason is simple--Wyoming
is made up almost exclusively of small businesses, and the Federal
death tax hits small business owners the hardest of any group in
society. Many of the small businesses in Wyoming are in the
agricultural sector--ranching and farming businesses that have been
built up by families working together to help feed Wyoming and America.
These farms and ranches not only provide a great service to our State
and the country as a whole by helping provide food that we eat every
day, but they are an integral part of the western way of the life. All
too often, I have heard the painful stories of families who were forced
to sell their ranches or farms just to pay the taxes when their parents
pass away. The death tax chips away at our very way of life in the West
and elsewhere and should be abolished.
The death tax discourages thrift and pierces the very heart of the
American economy--small businesses. We should never forget that small
businesses are the backbone of the American economy. The simple fact is
that most businesses in this country are small businesses. Out of the
nearly 5.5 million employers in this country, 99 percent are businesses
with fewer than 500 employees. Almost 90 percent of those businesses
employ fewer than twenty employees. Since the early 1970s, small
businesses have created two out of every three net new jobs in this
country. This remarkable job growth continued even during periods of
slow national growth and downturns when most large corporations were
downsizing and laying off workers. Small businesses employ more than
half of the private sector workforce and are responsible for producing
roughly half of our nation's gross domestic product. By punishing small
businesses, the Federal death tax stifles our economy, discourages
ingenuity, and threatens the economic security of many of our families.
The Federal death tax also tears at the bonds that unite parents and
children and families and communities. The family business has
historically been one of the primary means for children to learn skills
and virtues that help them throughout their entire lives. I know many
of the hard-working men and women in Wyoming who run our State's family
ranches and farms. The whole family pitches in to harvest the crops,
feed the livestock, mend the fences, fix the irrigation ditches, plow
the roads, herd the sheep and cattle, and plan for next year's crops or
herds. Children learn that hard work and responsible planning are
necessary ingredients for success in work as in life. They learn
respect for the land that is their livelihood. They learn to appreciate
the labor of their parents and grandparents and they realize their own
labor is an investment in their future and the future of their
children.
Unfortunately, we live at a time in America when there are all too
many forces in our society telling our children that everything goes
and that instant gratification is the only goal in life. It we as
policymakers want to curb this trend, if we want to teach our children
the importance of personal responsibility, hard work, and investment in
their future, we should encourage family-owned businesses which are one
of the domestic classrooms for teaching our children these time-honored
virtues.
I have a little experience in operating a small business myself. My
family and I ran a couple of small family-owned shoe stores in
Gillette, WY. We didn't have separate division for merchandising and
marketing. We didn't have an accounting department to sort out the
complicated tax code. We all wore many hats. We had to sell the shoes,
balance the books, keep track of our inventory, and straighten out the
shelves. We had to sweep the sidewalks when we opened in the morning
and at the end of a long day, we had to clean the floors and organize
the store room. Let me tell you that we all learned to pitch in to get
the job done. We learned to work together and we learned to appreciate
the hard work and sacrifices each of us made to keep the store running
smoothly.
We also learned firsthand the importance of living by the golden
rule. If you don't treat your customers well in the retail business
they don't forget. This is especially true of folks in small towns
where there are always a few people who remember what you did as a kid
and who can even tell you stories about your parents and grandparents.
The joy is, they also remember you when you treat them well. The
family-owned business is an important means we have in America of
passing on our heritage from one generation to the next.
Our tax code represents our tax policy and we should be ashamed at a
code which punishes families and stifles our economy. Every year our
tax code forces thousands of families to sell their businesses just to
pay the repressive Federal death tax. It is time we correct this
injustice by eliminating the death tax. I commend Chairman Roth for his
diligent work bringing this bill to the floor. I also commend Senator
Kyl, who has been a tireless advocate for the repeal of this tax ever
since he came to the United States Senate and who made an important
contribution to the legislation before us today. I urge my colleagues
to join me in standing up for America's small businesses by putting the
death tax permanently to rest.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, since the beginning of the fiscal year,
the national debt has increased, not decreased. Since we have been
running a deficit and there is no surplus, any tax cut or loss of
revenues only increases the debt rather than paying down the debt.
Accordingly, I oppose the telephone tax cut, and I oppose this estate
tax cut. As John Mitchell used to say, ``Watch what we do, not what we
say.'' We say pay down the debt but we increase it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the Republican proposal to repeal
the Federal estate tax and support the Democratic alternative proposal
to provide relief from the estate tax to those who need it most--small
businesses and family farms.
The current estate tax was first enacted by Congress in 1916, partly
at the behest of President Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was
right. It's appropriate to tax a little more those who have prospered
greatly from the American political and economic systems in order to
provide some assistance to those who have also worked hard but have
fallen behind. That's the basic tenet of our progressive system of
taxation. Roosevelt was also correct that the tax should not discourage
people from seeing to it that their children are well-off, but rather
be aimed at immense fortunes. That is why I support the Democratic
proposal to reform the estate tax to provide prompt relief to small
business owners and farmers, rather than the Republican proposal to
repeal it gradually over the next ten years, but totally for even the
greatest fortunes while making small businesses and farmers wait for
relief.
The Democratic proposal targets tax relief to persons with more
modest estates and to small businesses and family farms and it does so
at a more reasonable cost. By increasing the exemption for Qualified
Family-Owned Business Interests from its current level of $2.6 million
per couple to $4 million per couple in 2001, the Democratic alternative
provides immediate relief by removing altogether more than 90 percent
of family farms and more than 60 percent of small businesses from the
estate tax rolls. In stark contrast, the Republican plan removes no one
from the estate tax burden for another 10 years.

[[Page S6777]]

In addition to providing relief immediately, the Democratic proposal
does so at a more reasonable cost--$64 billion over 10 years, compared
to $105 billion for the Republican repeal. This $40 billion difference
can and should go to other important national priorities--such as a
prescription drug benefit for Medicare, making a college education more
affordable, extending Medicare's solvency, or reducing the national
debt. But the Republican repeal will cost much more than that. In its
second 10 years, 2011-2020, the same decade in which the baby boomers
begin to retire and place enormous strains on the Medicare system and
on Social Security, the Republican repeal is estimated to cost up to
$750 billion. To give such a huge tax cut to a few thousand of the
wealthiest among us at the expense of important national priorities for
our children, grandchildren, and senior citizens is simply wrong.
I believe that taxes should be distributed fairly among all
Americans. I also believe that we have a responsibility to protect
Medicare and Social Security, to pay down the national debt, and to
make the investments in health-care, education and other key areas that
will keep America strong in the future. The Democratic estate tax
reform plan is consistent with these goals. The Republican plan puts
them at risk.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senate has
taken four days now to debate the estate tax before making any real
progress on education, health, or debt reduction. Democrats agree that
owners of small businesses and farms need relief from this tax, and if
the Republicans had worked with us, this problem could have been solved
long ago. Instead, our Republican colleagues are holding small business
owners and farmers hostage as their excuse to provide an enormous
windfall to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers--people who have an
average income of over $800,000 a year. The repeal of the estate tax
that they seek, costing over $50 billion a year, is the ultimate tax
break for the wealthy, and any repeal bill will eminently deserve the
veto that President Clinton has promised if it reaches his desk.
The Senate has much higher priorities that we should have addressed
this week. Tens of millions of senior citizens face a crisis because
they can't afford the prescription drugs they need. The extraordinary
promise of fuller and healthier lives brought by new prescription drugs
is beyond their reach. They need help to afford these life-saving,
life-changing miracle drugs. But instead of doing the work that is
needed to enable all seniors to access the prescription drugs they
need, the Senate spends day after day doing the bidding of a few
thousand of America's wealthiest citizens.
We send tens of millions of young children to dilapidated, crumbling,
over-crowded schools with underpaid teachers each day--yet we stand
here debating a bill to repeal the tax on multi-million dollar estates.
Millions of working men and women and their families struggle to
survive on the minimum wage at its current unfair level of $5.15 an
hour. The Republican Senate has no time to meet their needs--yet the
time of the Senate is instantly available to those who make thousands
of dollars each hour.
Congress has not found time to resolve any of the daily problems
facing the vast majority of the nation's working families, its senior
citizens, and its school children. In this ``do-nothing Congress,'' the
list of priority matters on which nothing is done goes on and on--gun
safety, the patients' bill of rights, protecting children from tobacco,
protecting the environment. There is no time for any of these issues--
but there is always time to help millionaires and even billionaires
reduce their taxes. It is obvious where the priorities of our
Republican friends lie.
All Americans should take a clear look at what the Republicans really
want when they propose a full repeal of the estate tax. Current law now
taxes only the largest 2 percent of all estates. No one else pays any
estate tax. Today anyone can bequeath unlimited resources to a spouse
completely free of the estate tax, and $675,000 to anyone else--again
completely without tax. Present law already exempts up to $1.3 million
for family-owned businesses and farms.
We Democrats seek to substantially raise these exemptions so that
next year, no one pays the tax on the first two million dollars in
value of any estate, and by 2010, no one pays the tax on the first four
million dollars in value of any estate. The Democratic plan affords
owners of small businesses and family farms double these exemptions, so
that couples who own a small business or family farm worth up to $8
million would pay no estate tax at all. If a business or farm is worth
over $8 million, only the portion over $8 million in an estate is taxed
under the Democratic plan. The Democratic plan will eliminate all
estate taxes for more than half of those who currently pay them. I
stand with my Democratic colleagues in fully supporting this common
sense approach to estate tax reform.

Estate tax repeal, however, is simply a boon for the three thousand
largest estates each year, valued not in millions, but in the tens of
millions of dollars. These huge estates are the only ones significantly
affected by the estate tax.
Currently, over half of all estate taxes are paid by the top one
tenth of the wealthiest one percent--estates worth more than $5
million. There are fewer than three thousand of these estates out of
the 2.3 million Americans who die each year. According to an analysis
by the Citizens for Tax Justice, 91 percent of the tax benefits from
repeal of the estate tax would go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers--
who have an average annual income of $837,000. As Treasury Secretary
Lawrence Summers has said, repealing the estate tax would qualify as
the most regressive and back-loaded tax legislation ever.
Republicans don't want to talk about who will really benefit from
this enormous tax cut. Instead, they talk about the plight of small
family owned farms and businesses. What they don't tell you is that
these family owned small businesses and farms account for less than ten
percent of estate taxes today.
We could act now--and we should--to help families keep their farms
and businesses when the owner dies. This concern is legitimate--but it
does not justify eliminating the entire estate tax. The estate tax
problem for small businesses and family farms could be solved at a
fraction of the cost of the Republican bill. Our Democratic proposal
provides full relief to these families.
If helping owners of small farms and businesses were the Republicans'
real goal, they would join us to pass the Democratic estate tax reform
overwhelmingly. After all, the Democratic plan exempts almost all
owners of small businesses and farms immediately, while the Republican
plan takes ten years before exempting anyone. Republicans obviously
know that giving immediate relief to family farms and small firms will
take away any pretext at all for the enormous windfall that they want
to give the richest taxpayers. They know they can never explain the
real purpose of their estate tax repeal to the voters--so they are
holding relief for small business owners and small farmers hostage to
their unacceptable larger scheme for helping the super-rich.
The people whom the Republican leadership is really working for--but
whom they don't want to mention--are those few people who inherit the
3,000 estates each year that are worth more than $5 million. These
estates are one in every thousand estates--yet they pay over half of
the current estate tax. When pressed to explain why these estates need
to have taxes eliminated entirely, Republicans respond vaguely in terms
of ``fairness.'' They never explain why it is fairer to tax the earned
income of working families than the unearned inheritance of the
wealthiest families in America. That is a fairness issue they never
want to talk about. There is nothing compassionately conservative about
repealing the estate tax.
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt thought the estate tax was
fair when he proposed it a century ago. He believed then and we believe
today that those who have the largest financial resources have an
obligation to help provide for the basic needs of the less fortunate
members of this community. Obviously, today's Republicans don't share
Teddy Roosevelt's values.
The supporters of the Republican estate tax repeal have also
carefully designed it to conceal its real long-run cost. Under their
scheme, full repeal

[[Page S6778]]

would not occur until the year 2010. When fully phased in, the repeal
will cost over $50 billion a year. The cost of repealing the estate tax
will be nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars in the second ten
years. This nation cannot afford to devote three quarters of a trillion
dollars to repealing the estate tax. The 98 percent of Americans who
would receive no tax relief from repeal of the estate tax know it is
unfair to spend this vast amount on the wealthiest taxpayers.
Let's consider what $50 billion a year can accomplish for the
American people--if we don't repeal the estate tax. It is more than the
entire budget for the Department of Education. We could double the
federal investment in schools--provide smaller classes with better
teachers, state of the art computer technology for every classroom, and
modern school facilities across the nation. We could double the
financial assistance for college students.
Consider what $50 billion a year could do for senior citizens. It is
$10 billion more than is needed to fully fund prescription drug
coverage for all elderly Americans under Medicare.
We have a bipartisan congressional goal to double the funding for
medical research through the National Institutes of Health and improve
the health of our entire nation. Fifty billion dollars a year would
allow us to virtually triple the NIH budget.
These are the most pressing needs of the American people--not repeal
of the estate tax.
Astonishing as it may seem, I have heard my Republican colleagues
stand on this floor and claim that the projected budget surplus enables
us to easily afford their estate tax repeal. But by the time their law
is fully effective in 2010, it will cost the Treasury over $50 billion
each year, rising to $750 billion over ten years.
Repeal of the estate tax would also cost the country billions in
charitable contributions. A Treasury Department analysis estimates that
it would cause charitable contributions to be reduced by $6 billion per
year. Colleges that rely on donations to build buildings and provide
scholarships would be hurt. Medical schools that rely on donations to
conduct medical research would be halted. Public Hospitals that rely on
donations to buy equipment and buildings would have to cut back on
their ability to provide health care. Shelters that rely on donations
to keep people warm and fed would have to turn more people away. Six
billion dollars is precious to the non-profit sector of this Nation.
The entire Department of Education will have budgeted $48 billion in
fiscal year 2005. You don't hear Republicans saying we can easily
afford to double education spending. Instead, during the recent debate
on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we repeatedly heard our
Republican colleagues say that they had to compromise among competing
meritorious priorities to fit within their limited budget. They have
ample money for the super-rich--but nothing for students in crumbling
schools.
The same is true for prescription drugs. President Clinton's proposal
would cost about $40 billion in 2010, the year before Republicans want
to begin giving over $50 billion each year in tax breaks to the
wealthiest of all Americans.
I vote for prescription drugs over estate tax repeal. I vote for
education over estate tax repeal. I vote for medical research over
estate tax repeal. This issue should not even be a close question for
98 percent of Americans.
The Republican Party is living up to its reputation as the ``Let Them
Eat Cake'' Party.
What do they propose for senior citizens who desperately need
prescription drugs? Republicans say, ``Let them eat cake.''
What do they propose for schools and students? Republicans say ``Let
them eat cake.''
What do they propose for workers struggling to survive on the minimum
wage? Republicans say, ``Let them eat cake.''
What do they propose for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers? A $50
billion annual windfall at the expense of America's hard-working
families.
I say, ``Let them eat cake'' will work no better for the Republican
Party than it did for Marie Antoinette.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few brief follow-up
remarks about the repeal of the unfair and unjust death tax. As I said
before, it is the family farms and small business owners that the death
taxes particularly harm, not the rich, as our colleagues from the other
side of aisle claim.
Mr. President, the death tax hurts average American workers as well.
Let me give you another example of how this tax penalizes those
workers:
Hy-Vee, Inc., headquartered in Iowa, with operations in my state of
Minnesota and 7 other Midwestern states, is one of the largest
employee-owned companies in the nation. Over the past half a century,
the employees and the management of Hy-Vee have built a very successful
business. It is ranked one of the top 15 supermarket chains in this
country, and top 5 supermarket chains based on cleanliness, and other
services.
Through the company's profit-sharing mechanism, workers in Hy-Vee are
rewarded for their hard work. Over 171 workers of the Hy-Vee company
have accumulated assets of over $650,000. These employees are not
wealthy individuals by any means but average workers who work at the
checkout lines or at mid-level management.
However, a large portion of the earnings from their hard work can be
taken away by the government if we don't eliminate the death tax.
Ron Pearson, CEO of Hy-Vee, says: ``We believe that in many ways,
employee ownership represents the truest expression of the American
dream. It is simply unfortunate that the dream also contains a
nightmare--the estate tax.''
Mr. President, I believe Mr. Pearson is right. We must repeal the
death tax to preserve the American dream for working Americans.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article telling Hy-
Vee's story be printed in the Record.
There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Hy-Vee, Inc.

(By Ron Pearson)

A strong case could be made that Hy-Vee, Inc., Iowa's
largest employer, represents the essence of American
capitalism.
Hy-Vee, headquartered in West Des Moines, is one of the
nation's largest employee-owned companies, ranking 32nd in
Forbes Magazine's list of the top private firms. With the
slogan, ``A Helpful Smile in Every Aisle,'' Hy-Vee, Inc.
operates more than 200 stores in seven Midwestern states, and
generates annual sales in excess of $3.5 billion--making it
one of the top 15 supermarket chains in the nation. In
addition to 184 Hy-Vee Food Stores, the Company operates 27
Drug Town drug stores. Hy-Vee also has developed or acquired
several subsidiary companies to provide goods and services in
dairy, perishables, floral, grocery products, banking,
construction and advertising.
Hy-Vee was founded in 1930 by Charles Hyde and David
Vredenburg, who opened a small general store in Beaconsfield,
Iowa. Eight years later, the two men incorporated as Hyde &
Vredenburg, Inc., with 15 stores and 16 stockholders. The
name Hy-Vee is a contraction of the two founders' names.
From its very beginning, Hy-Vee has been employee-owned.
Profits are shared with employees through the Company's
Profit-Sharing Trust Fund, and a combination of bonus,
commission, and incentive systems. Every Hy-Vee employee,
from CEO Ron Pearson to produce clerks and truck drivers, is
included in the plan. The result is an incredibly loyal and
long-serving employee group renowned throughout the Midwest
for unflagging dedication to customer service, efficient
operation, and community involvement. Within the grocery
industry, Hy-Vee enjoys a sterling reputation as a retailing
innovator as well as a Company with a strong commitment to
high ethical standards and business integrity. Hy-Vee's food
safety training program, for example, has become a national
model of workplace procedures designed to insure freshness
and quality. Ron Pearson has served as co-chairman of a
national task force on diversity in the supermarket industry,
reflective of his Company's involvement in expanding
management opportunities for female and minority employees.
In 1997, Hy-Vee was ranked by Consumer Reports magazine as
one of the nation's top 5 supermarket chains on the basis of
cleanliness, courtesy, speed of checkout and price/value.
All in all, Hy-Vee represents the pinnacle of success not
only within the supermarket industry, but also as an
organization in which the individual employees are held to
the highest standards--and rewarded for their work. Some 171
active employees of the Company have accumulated balances of
$650,000 or more in their retirement holdings and Hy-Vee
stock. These are store employees, mid-level managers and the
like, people who hardly fit the negative stereotype that most
Americans have of the wealthy. Yet it is these individuals--
and their families--whose life holdings are at risk because
of the federal estate tax.

[[Page S6779]]

The estate tax was implemented early in the 20th Century as
a way to break up the incredible wealth that had concentrated
among a relatively small group of families. The tax has long
outlived its usefulness; in fact, the amount of estate taxes
collected each year doesn't even cover the cost of
collection. But it lives on, penalizing people like the
estate tax employees who have earned a secure future for
their families over a lifetime of hard work.
``As an employee-owned company, we've had great success in
building a reputation for customer service, efficient
operations, and community involvement, in large part because
we're the owners,'' Pearson says. ``The federal estate tax
ends up penalizing employees who've built a retirement nest
egg through hard work and dedication.''
The estate tax places the philosophy underlying employee
ownership at risk. Hard work, after all, should have its own
rewards.
Still, Hy-Vee has no doubt that its formula works best--for
all concerned: its employees, certainly, but also its
customers and the communities it serves. ``We believe that in
many ways, employee ownership represents the truest
expression of the American dream,'' Pearson says. ``It is
simply unfortunate that the dream also contains a nightmare--
the estate tax.''

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the
estate tax repeal bill before the Senate.
Along with eight of my Democratic colleagues, I am a cosponsor of S.
1128, the Kyl-Kerrey repeal bill. Barring the attachment of any
egregious amendments, I intend to vote for final passage of H.R. 8.
But while I am a cosponsor of S. 1128, I want to take a moment to
voice my concern about the debate we have had so far.
I believe there are two policy challenges before us.
First, Congress needs to ensure the vast majority of Americans--
including those who do not own family business and farm assets--do not
need to worry about paying estate taxes or going through burdensome
estate tax planning. Current law does a fairly good job in this area.
In fact, only two percent of estates actually pay an estate tax each
year.
The estate tax reform provisions we passed as part of the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997 helped take us further in the right direction. But
the prosperity we've had in the last seven years has threatened to push
more people in the direction of costly estate tax planning. In the
spirit of a fairer tax code, Congress needs to take additional action.
The second policy challenge we face is more complex. That challenge
is to ensure the tax code does not prevent the efficient transfer of
family businesses and farms to the next generation. Unfortunately, in
its current form, the estate tax can be a major hurdle to the efficient
transfer of family business and farm assets.
One of the arguments made for the estate tax is it deconcentrates
wealth. The problem is family businesses--sometimes as the result of
planning for the estate tax or paying the estate tax--have been swept
up by large corporations with no ties to the community. We need to
recognize changes in the economy have also changed the debate we should
be having on the estate tax.
I am a cosponsor of S. 1128 because I believe it is the only
reasonable vehicle before us that addresses how we transfer family
businesses and farms to the next generation. Unfortunately, estate tax
repeal is extremely expensive. And at the end of the day, I am still
hopeful we can find another solution to the two policy challenges I
have outlined.
While I will vote to pass H.R. 8, I must express some disappointment
with the estate tax debate we've had in Congress. It's as if both sides
have dug in so deep with the same arguments for so long that we can't
have a thoughtful debate on the merits of the issue. The black and
white choice is either to repeal the ``death'' tax or to oppose a tax
break that will only benefit America's wealthiest citizens.
My friends in the majority could be proposing estate tax reform or
repeal in the context of a responsible, long-term fiscal plan.
Unfortunately, they have chosen not to do so. It seems the extent of
the fiscal planning our majority colleagues have done is to note there
were 279 votes in the House for H.R. 8--enough to override an expected
veto. I believe the American people deserve more thoughtful
deliberation.
Meanwhile, many Democrats and the Administration have been slower to
react to real and heartfelt concerns people have about the estate tax.
H.R. 8 has been criticized by some of my colleagues as a bill that
would simply benefit the wealthiest estates. I can tell you that I have
not been contacted by the wealthiest individuals in my state. Rather,
for the last seven years, I have heard from family business and farm
owners who are desperate to get a tax code that effectively allows them
to transfer their operations to the children and grandchildren. They
want their Washington state businesses to remain Washington state
businesses for many years to come.
Since I first began working on estate tax reform in 1995, my
commitment has been to provide estate tax relief to small family
businesses and farmers. I believe the public interest on this issue is
to continue to work--as I have done the last five years--to push
forward with estate tax reform. Therefore, I supported the Democratic
alternative and I will support H.R. 8. It is my sincere hope we can
work on a bipartisan basis to craft a compromise that President Clinton
will sign before the end of the year. And I hope the compromise will
include estate tax relief for small businesses and farms in the next
ten years, which H.R. 8 does not do.
It is clear H.R. 8 will be vetoed, and likely Congress will sustain
the veto. But I'm glad we had the debate. Earlier this week, when we
appeared deadlocked on the estate tax bill, I initiated a letter signed
by all nine of the Democratic cosponsors of S. 1128. The letter urged
the majority leader to allow a reasonable number of Democratic
amendments on the estate tax bill.
Following my letter, I was pleased we were able to move forward with
a unanimous consent agreement to consider the estate tax bill. After
this debate, I hope we can move forward to consider the other pressing
business before us, including passage of permanent normal trade
relations for China.

Carryover Basis Provisions

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from California inquired of
me about the intent of the amendment with regard to the carryover
basis. Let me assure the Senator from California that it is the intent
of the sponsors that for estates over $100 million in size the
carryover basis provisions would not apply. Those estates would be able
to benefit from the stepped-up basis provisions of current law. To the
extent that my amendment is unclear on this matter, I would fight for
changes in Conference that would make that entirely clear.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for
his clarification. The point he makes is essential to me. If I had not
had the understanding with regard to the carryover basis that he has
just indicated, I would not have supported the amendment.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have worked hard over the last
7 years to restore strength to our Nation's economy. We have turned
record deficits into record surpluses. Today, we are about to make a
decision none of us could have imagined making in 1993. The question
facing us is: How should we spend the first significant portion of the
surplus?
Our Republican colleagues believe we should use the first major
portion of the surplus to eliminate a tax that is paid by only the
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. They say the first, best use of the
surplus is to give people with estates worth more than $20 million a
$10.5 million tax break.
The cost of their plan is $105 billion for the first 10 years. In the
second 10 years, the cost balloons to $750 billion. Three-quarters of a
trillion dollars in the second 10 years alone--to eliminate a tax paid
only by the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. The full cost of the
Republican estate tax cut would hit at the worst possible time: just as
the baby boomers are starting to retire. That is our Republican
colleagues' highest priority for the surplus: to help those who are
already benefitting most from this economy.
Democrats disagree. We support cutting the estate tax. We voted in
1997 to do just that.
Today we are offering a plan to cut estate taxes even further. But
our plan is different--in three very important ways--from the
Republican plan.
First, our plan helps family farmers and ranchers, and small-business
owners, immediately.
The Republican plan does not remove one family-owned farm or ranch or

[[Page S6780]]

small business during the first 10 years. Not one.
Just as an aside, I must say I have been surprised, during this
debate, to hear so many of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle expressing concern for family farmers and ranchers. In South
Dakota and all across this country, family farmers and ranchers are
working practically around the clock to scratch out a living. They are
working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week--not even making back their
production costs, earning less than their parents and grandparents
earned in the Depression.
Too many of them are being forced to sell farms and ranches that have
been in their families for generations--not because they cannot pay
estate taxes; their farms and ranches are not worth enough to owe any
estate taxes. They are being forced out by the disastrous Federal
agriculture policies put in place by a Republican Congress. I am
relieved to hear our colleagues acknowledge, finally, that family
farmers and ranchers need help from this Government. I hope they will
continue to believe that when we move on to the agriculture
appropriations bill next week.
That is the first difference between our plan to cut estate taxes and
the Republican plan: Our plan cuts estate taxes for family farmers and
ranchers immediately. Their plan does nothing for family farmers and
ranchers for the first 10 years.
The second major difference is, our plan costs less: $65 versus $105
billion over the first 10 years. Our plan does not cost in the second
decade, as their plan does.
Our plan is simple and effective. For couples with assets of up to $4
million, we eliminate the estate tax entirely. We also eliminate the
estate tax on all family farms, ranches, and businesses worth up to $8
million. Under our plan, only the wealthiest seven-tenths of 1 percent
of estates and the wealthiest one-half of one percent of family-owned
businesses would pay any estate taxes.
Let me say that again: Only the wealthiest seven-tenths of one
percent of couples and the wealthiest one-half of one percent of
businesses would pay any estate taxes under our proposal.
The third major difference between our plan and the Republican plan
is: Our plan also helps the other 98 percent of Americans who do not
pay estate taxes. Because we target our estate tax relief, we are able
to provide additional tax breaks to families, to help them with real,
pressing needs--like child care, paying for college, and caring for
sick and aging relatives. Because we target our estate tax relief, we
are able to provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Under our plan, someone who inherits an estate worth $20 million
would receive a tax cut of roughly $1 million. Our Republican
colleagues say that is not enough. They want to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars more than is in our plan, on far bigger tax cuts
for multimillionaires. That is their priority for the surplus: bigger
tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans--at the expense of everyone
else.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: before you cast
this vote, imagine sitting down at the kitchen table with parents who
are wondering how they are going to pay for their children's college
education. Imagine sitting around a kitchen table with a middle-aged
woman who is wondering what will happen when her parents need long-term
care--where the money will come from. Imagine talking with a retired
couple who have cut back on necessities in order to pay for their
prescriptions each month. How would you explain your vote to them? How
would you explain to them that eliminating a tax that affects only the
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans is more important than helping them
care for their children, or their aging parents--or helping them with
the cost of their prescriptions?
What could you possibly say to convince them to sign onto a $750
billion tax bill that won't help them one nickel, and will come due
just as the baby boomers start to retire? For the life of me, I can't
imagine.
A Nation's budget is full of moral implications. It tells what a
society cares about and what it doesn't care about. It tells what our
values are. There are better ways to spend the first major portion of
the surplus than by repealing a tax that affects only the wealthiest 2
percent of Americans. America's families have needs that are far more
urgent. Those are the needs that should come first.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I supported final passage of the Death Tax
Elimination Act. I'm a cosponsor of similar legislation, and I've long
believed that simply dying shouldn't be a taxable event. Death and
taxes may be inevitable, but they don't have to be simultaneous.
Because we've been willing to make some tough decisions over the last
seven years, we now have the first budget surplus we've seen in this
nation in a generation. We need to continue making those tough
decisions. We need to keep the prosperity going by investing in our
schools and roads and paying down the debt. We need to strengthen
Social Security and modernize Medicare by adding a prescription drug
benefit. We need to bolster our nation's defenses, which includes
improving the quality of life for those who now serve in our military
and honoring our commitment to provide health care for life for those
who've already served. And we need to provide targeted tax relief.
To address these many needs, we in Congress ought to establish our
priorities first. I continue to believe that before we enact massive
untargeted tax cuts, we should make sure that Social Security is strong
and that Medicare contains a prescription drug benefit. I voted today
to phase out the estate tax because I'm committed to making sure that
no one loses their farm or their small business because of the way we
tax gifts and estates. We know this legislation we passed today will be
vetoed. Once the bill is vetoed, I hope we can come to the table in a
bipartisan way to address a few of our more pressing national
priorities and construct a fair way to protect family farms and small
businesses from having to be broken up or sold just to pay estate
taxes.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the
Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. The death tax, which is also known
as the estate and gift or the transfer tax, is an unfair and
counterproductive burden on our economy, and it is past time Congress
repealed it.
Many of my colleagues who agree with me that this tax ought to be
repealed have made many persuasive arguments as to why. Rather than
repeat all of these excellent arguments, I would like to focus on just
one vital reason the death tax should be repealed: by hurting millions
of closely-held businesses and farms, the death tax harms the economy
and every American.
Mr. President, our colleagues from across the aisle have been quick
to assert that only two percent of all estates are affected by the
estate tax and that fewer than five percent of these estates are made
up of farms and small businesses. These statistics are highly
misleading and conceal a very important point. Estates that actually
pay the estate tax represent only the tip of the iceberg of the total
number of estates that are harmed by the tax. Let me explain.
Millions of individuals and the owners of millions of family-owned
farms, ranches, and closely-held businesses are potentially subject to
the estate tax, but the majority of them are able, with great effort
and expense, to avoid the tax by complex tax planning or by selling the
business or farm. What are left are the two percent of death tax-paying
estates my colleagues keep mentioning.
Every year, billions of dollars are spent in legal and tax planning
fees and other costs so that estates may effectively avoid the death
tax. A survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers
last month found that, over the past five years, more than 40 percent
of respondents spent more than $100,000 on attorney and consultant
fees, life insurance premiums, and other estate planning techniques.
More than half had spent over $25,000 in the past year. Despite this
planning, nearly one-third of the respondents believed the business
would have to be sold to pay the death tax if the owner died tomorrow.
Furthermore, thousands of businesses are prematurely sold each year
in order to escape the death tax. Business owners are forced into
selling their business when they have tangible

[[Page S6781]]

assets of significant value, such as land or business machinery, and
yet have few liquid assets to pay an estate tax bill. Clearly, a great
many more taxpayers are affected by the estate tax than opponents of
repeal would have us believe.

Let me give you an example, Mr. President. Until late last year, Ken
Macey was the chairman of his second-generation family-owned grocery
business based in Sandy, Utah. Ken's father had founded the business in
1946, opening a tiny store called ``Sava Nickel'' in a renovated house
in North Salt Lake. Relying on old-fashioned hard work and thrift and
the principle of treating customers and employees as they would want to
be treated, the Macey family built their business into an eight-store
chain, with $200 million per year in revenues and 1,800 employees.
Mr. Macey tells me he would have liked to keep the business in the
family. However, the long shadow of the death tax loomed. Even though
Mr. Macey had spent many thousands of dollars in professional fees for
estate tax planning, he still believed his estate was vulnerable for
tax rates of up to 60 percent. Rather than risk the trauma of a forced
sale upon his death that could have been devastating to his children
and the 1,800 employees and their families that depended on Macey's for
their livelihood, Mr. Macey decided to sell his business to a larger
food store chain.
Although this story could have been much worse if some or all of
Macey's employees has lost their jobs, it is a tragedy that a business
founded by this Utahn's father was forced to be sold outside the
family. Macey's Inc. is another example of the millions of American
family businesses that do not survive to the next generation.
Some of the same senators and congressmen--and our President--who
have decried the loss of family farms and family-owned small businesses
and who have wondered aloud why large corporations seem to be taking
over Main Street have totally ignored the estate tax as one major
reason. Yet, many of these colleagues continue to argue that repealing
the death tax benefits only the wealthiest two percent.
According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, only
about 30 percent of family farms and businesses survive to the second
generation, and only about 4 percent survive a second-to-third
generation transfer. No one can tell Mr. Macey or his children or
grandchildren that they are not the victims of an unfair death tax.
The point is that a huge amount of money, effort, and talent is
wasted by millions of individuals and owners of family farms and
businesses on activities designed to avoid the death tax. Most of these
efforts are successful in the sense that the majority of these estates
avoid paying the tax. However, the cost to the economy in terms of lost
productivity, business disruption, and lost jobs is enormous.
A December 1998 study by the Joint Economic Committee concluded that
the death tax has reduced the stock of capital in the economy by almost
a half trillion dollars. By putting these resources to better use, as
many as 240,000 jobs could be created over a seven year period,
resulting in an additional $24.4 billion in disposable personal income.
A study released last year by the Institute for Policy Innovation
(IPI) estimated that the repeal of the estate tax would, over 10 years:
Increase annual gross domestic product by $137 billion.
Boost the nation's capital stock by $1.7 trillion.
Create 275,000 more jobs than would otherwise be created.
The IPI study also estimated that over the first decade following
repeal of the death tax, added growth from capital formation would
generate offsetting federal revenues of 78 percent of the static
revenue loss. By 2010, these gains would totally offset the loss in
revenues.
Mr. President, my colleagues who oppose the repeal of the estate and
gift tax would have the American people believe that this repeal would
benefit only a very few rich families in America. What a distortion of
the facts! All of us are hurt by a tax that drives millions of people
to spend billions of dollars in largely effective, but economically
destructive, activities to avoid paying the death tax. When these
efforts fail, jobs are often lost and dreams often die. All of us will
benefit by repealing the tax, through increased economic activity, more
jobs, more disposable income, and a fairer tax system.
Again, I commend Senator Roth and other supporters of this bill for
pointing out the many reasons it should be passed and passed
expeditiously.
I would like my friends and colleagues on the other side of this
issue to remember that the estate and gift tax--the ``death tax''--is
not a tax on income. Income was already taxed. This is a tax on the
American dream. This is a tax on a way of life for many American
families and the accumulation of their hard work. This is a tax on
their hope for the future, which often includes leaving something for
their children and grandchildren.
We must repeal it, and the time is now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The clerk will read the bill
for the third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

YEAS--59

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--39

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Voinovich
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Daschle
Hutchinson

The bill (H.R. 8) was passed.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________