Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006

PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2006

BREAK IN TRANCRISPT

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has made a diligent and sincere effort to seek a compromise position on the estate tax issue, and he should be commended here in the House today. Many of the Members of the House have conceded that the threshold at which estates are subject to the tax is not realistic in today's economy, considering the assets many small businesses routinely accrue in this country. While I believe the full repeal of the tax is unjustifiable, because it would mean such a huge loss of revenue to benefit primarily the wealthiest portion of our population, I believe there is interest in making some adjustment, if the cost in terms of lost revenues is reasonable. So I applaud the effort that was made to seek this compromise, however I rise today Mr. Speaker to oppose the unfortunate result, H.R. 5638, because I believe it doesn't meet the test of being reasonable.

At a time when the annual budget deficit is now approaching $400 billion and when there are so many urgent issues in our society that we simply cannot afford to address, I believe the compromise that has been reached raises that threshold far higher than it should be and thus it relinquishes far too much revenue in order to assist a very high-income sector of our population. When fully implemented, and assuming that the current capital gains tax rates are extended permanently, this bill will reduce revenues by an average of $82 billion a year for the first ten years that it is fully implemented. To provide my colleagues with a frame of reference, $82 billion is well more than twice as much as we appropriated earlier this month for the entire Department of Homeland Security. It is nearly four times as much as the appropriation we will consider for the entire Department of Justice for the upcoming fiscal year.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the nation is now engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--for which too few Americans are being asked to sacrifice--and we face a compelling need for substantial federal investments that are required to secure our homeland from the threats of terrorist attacks. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is neither prudent nor fiscally responsible to be adding such a large annual increase--another $82 billion--to the national debt at this time. We are cutting back on programs that benefit seniors, poor and middle-class Americans, and we are reducing our investment in education, health care, infrastructure and the environment. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that, by its very nature, provides such a large share of its tax benefits to the least-needy people here in the United States.

I regret that we could not reach a compromise position that was more fiscally responsible, because the Chairman did accede to our request to accelerate the passage of another important piece of legislation, H.R. 3883, by adding it to the compromise package. I appreciate the Chairman's personal interest in the passage of the Timber Tax bill, which I have cosponsored, in order to restore fairness to the tax code and allow regular corporations in the timber industry to compete on a level playing field with other ``pass-through'' entities that currently receive better tax treatment. Again, it is with great regret that I urge the House to defeat the entire estate tax bill, because I believe the Timber Tax language represents a modest and deserving provision that should be passed no matter what becomes of this legislation. We can defeat H.R. 5638 today and return to the attempt at reaching a reasonable, prudent and fiscally-responsible compromise that addresses the legitimate needs of small business owners and that includes that Timber Tax provision. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5638.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov