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 .  