i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
mr. speaker , this rule brings an important debate to the floor . 
let me tell you what is not on the floor . 
what is not being debated is whether there should be additional estate tax relief . 
we agree there should be . 
much has been accomplished over the last few years in that regard . 
the estate tax level attached at $ 600 , 000 per individual at the beginning of this decade . 
so that , as my colleague from west virginia talks about the concern of estate tax on small businesses and farms , that may have been more the case at that time . 
certainly it is less the case now . 
the estate tax level attaches at $ 1.5 million per individual , $ 3 million per couple , and obviously the number of estates that would have tax consequences has fallen significantly . 
is it enough ? 
no . 
let us do something quite dramatic . 
the proposal that i am offering as a substitute would double from where we are today and in a very certain and immediate way bring to $ 6 million the estate tax exclusion for couples . 
couples across this country possessing less than $ 6 million in assets , no estate tax . 
nothing . 
gone . 
immediately and certainly . 
by the end of the decade , it moves to $ 7 million . 
by 2009 , there could be $ 7 million in a couple 's estate . 
is this meaningful ? 
you bet it is meaningful . 
you look at the numbers , and it will tell you that we all but make this problem go away . 
looking across this country , 99.7 percent of estates in this country no longer have estate tax issues under the substitute that i am advancing . 
that is 997 out of 1 , 000 . 
that is pretty significant . 
there are a couple of other differences . 
it is one-quarter of the cost of the majority proposal , $ 290 billion , that they are talking about . 
there are things they are saying that just are not so , that small businesses and family farms have major estate tax issues when the level is $ 6 million per couple . 
they do not . 
i represent family farms and small businesses all across the state of north dakota . 
i am telling you , if we set this level at $ 6 million per couple , to move to $ 7 million by the end of the decade , we largely take care of the problem . 
but beyond that , going forward , there is yet another very important wrinkle in the majority proposal . 
this is the capital gains tax that their proposal would add . 
it is unlike a tax relief bill that i have seen before , because , for everyone it helps , it adds capital gains taxes for many more . 
right now in the handling of an estate , there is no capital gains tax . 
under their proposal , they establish something called the carryover basis . 
not to get technical with you , but what that does is impose capital gains tax exposure on estates . 
the way the numbers work out , more estates are going to end up with capital gains consequences than get relief from estate taxes . 
so you help a few ; you harm a lot . 
it does not make much sense to me . 
again , at a total budget cost of $ 290 billion over the first 10 years and more than $ 800 billion over the second 10 years . 
this is a budget buster , my friends . 
at a time when we are talking about how we address the long-term solvency of social security , to just , without a concern , pass a $ 290 billion bill to help three-tenths of 1 percent of the most affluent in this country seems to be standing priorities directly on their head . 
the very people that favor privatizing social security , which is going to add risk in the social security benefit , which is going to reduce benefits sharply because they change the inflation index going forward , that is going to reduce the benefits on our children and grandchildren , want to now run up the debt on our children and grandchildren in order to help that three-tenths of 1 percent , the very wealthiest among us . 
what kind of sense is that ? 
so we have proposed something quite different , immediate and certain estate tax relief , $ 6 million per couple , $ 3 million per individual , right now , and in 2009 , $ 7 million per couple , $ 3.5 million per individual . 
and , once more , a proposal that i think we would want to consider closely , we could take the difference between the majority bill and our bill and dedicate it to the social security trust fund . 
there is a lot of talk from the other side : where 's your plan ? 
where 's your plan ? 
how about this one ? 
let us start by addressing the problem and making a good deal of it go away . 
if we took the difference , the amount of estate tax revenue over the $ 7 million figure at the end of the decade , and dedicated it to the social security trust fund , we could fill 40 percent of the hole over 75 years , almost make half the problem go away , while preserving benefits , while keeping the inflation adjustment that our grandchildren need . 
i think in the consequence of our floor discussions today it is important to talk about both concepts , the immediate and certain estate tax relief alternative that we are advancing and what we could do with the difference . 
they say this estate tax has to be repealed , that it is the most unfair thing in the world . 
i can think of something even more unfair , and that is cutting the benefits of social security to our children and grandchildren . 
that is more unfair in my opinion . 
we do not have to make that trade-off . 
we can make estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of the people in this country , take the balance between the bills , invest it in the social security trust fund and deal with almost half of the problem of the underfunding over the next 75 years . 
that is what the minority is bringing forward today . 
it is a thoroughly considered and balanced alternative , i believe a reasonable and responsible alternative , and i urge the members ' consideration . 
