Well, I thank the gentleman from Texas. Reclaiming my time, I look at the configuration of this proposal that is coming to the floor tomorrow and I am troubled by it. There are some good things in it. To ensure that the current tax brackets can run for 2 years, that is a good thing. It is not as good as it needs to be. It mitigates the damage of the increase that is impending in the death tax, but it doesn't address and fix the problem. It just makes it less egregious. So those are the good things about it. I am one who supports the credits for ethanol and biodiesel. I could make that argument, and it is not a bumper sticker argument. But the Federal Government has said we want you to invest your private sector capital in producing renewable fuels, and if you will do that, we will make sure there is enough there to get you started. Well, they invested, at least in my district, 3 years in a row over $1 billion in renewable energy, and now we are looking at that rug being jerked out from underneath the people that trusted the Federal Government. We may or may not agree on that policy here, but I think the government needs to be consistent. But in any case, here is what we are really looking at: We need to make the current tax structures permanent. We need to eliminate and abolish the death tax, because it is an immoral tax. And into this bargain, what do we get?…
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses concerns about a tax proposal and the implications for renewable energy investments.
Share
More from Steve King
I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 135, beginning on line 3, strike ``date on which the major disaster or…
It is my honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, because this is the 1-year anniversary of the date that a disparaging misquote in The…
I was unable to vote on December 3, and 4, 2020, due to not being in town. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 230; ``no'' on rollcall No. 231; ``no'' on rollcall No. 232; ``no'' on rollcall No. 233…
white nationalist, white supremacist, western civilization, how did that language become offensive?





