October 9, 1978
Page 34719
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator have a copy of his amendment so we can evaluate its budgetary implications?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
The widow survives the husband. There was a debt on the farm or ranch at the time that she became the wife. Even though it was 30 or 40 years ago, the value of the farm or ranch that was inherited at the time of marriage, when it comes to the time of figuring out how much of that inheritance for the surviving widow will be counted as contributing to the value she is entitled to have she has to go clear back to the time of acquirement—
It is totally unfair. The woman on the farm or ranch contributes just as much to the success of that operation as does the husband, and to not allow the woman, when she becomes a widow, to have the value of the appreciation of the land is totally unfair.
While part of the bill before us corrects some of this, this merely adds to it and makes it totally fair. If we believe in ERA, if we believe that women have an equal right to property, then by all means the Senate should accept this unanimously.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. METZENBAUM. It is controlled time.
Mr. HANSEN. Maybe the Senator from Maine would yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield a minute. I might say again we are undertaking to get the budgetary implications, and there is a possibility that it has budgetary implications.
I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I appreciate the Senator from Maine yielding.
Will the Senator from Montana indicate why there should be this discrimination? Will the Senator indicate why women who live on farms, on ranches, as against city dwellers who also pay tax, and where the women are oftentimes involved in a little family-owned business, where they pay a tax on a business similar to a ranch, I wonder why we are standing here suggesting a special kind of preferential treatment for those women who live on farms and ranches in contradistinction to those who live in the cities?
Mr. MELCHER. I am happy to tell my friend from Ohio that we do not make any distinction at all. If it is a small business the same applies. If it is a large business the same applies. It is just between the surviving spouse, and it will not apply just to land, but that is the point I am particularly addressing myself to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) yield me 1 minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield 1 minute.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from Montana under the present law, as I understand it, you pass an estate from a husband to a wife tax-free at $106,000. This amendment can only help estates above that amount; is that correct?
Mr. MELCHER. It would help an estate of $500,000, $300,000, $200,000.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Under the present law, it is up to $106,000, so unless you have an estate higher than that it would not have an effect.
Mr. MELCHER. That is not our understanding at all, that it is exempted up to that amount. The exemption is much smaller.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Our information is that it is exempt up to that point where it is passing from husband to wife only.
What is the revenue effect of the Senator's amendment? How much is involved?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Mr. MELCHER. I ask for an additional1 minute from somebody to respond.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. MELCHER. Under existing Federal estate tax law the exemption is $134,000 plus $250,000, so we are not talking about a passage from husband to wife. We are talking about a case of a widow on inheritance. In answer to the question on how much it would cost, we are advised by the Joint Committee on Taxation that the cost is negligible over and above what is already in the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say on that, I still do not know what the first full year's cost of this amendment would be. There would be no cost in fiscal 1979 for a very simple reason. It would not be effective until after December 31 of this year and there is a period of 9 months, I believe, to file for a benefit. So the revenue implications for fiscal year 1979 will, indeed, be zero as far as we can estimate. But we also conclude that there will be a full year's cost thereafter, and we do not know what that will be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.