On the recordJune 18, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that my colleagues vote against this rule. On the one hand, they do allow a Democrat substitute that I am pleased to offer, one that would provide very meaningful estate tax relief. In fact, it would completely take care of any estate tax problem of 99.65 percent of the people of this country. It is far more relief than offered under the majority proposal in each of the next 5 years. So these family farms and these small businesses we are going to be hearing so much about, the alligator tears we are going to be seeing cried on the majority side, we help them and we help them now. On the other hand, the majority approach is very different. Nobody gets nothing until the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent get everything that they need. That is why we have the inferior plan on their side compared to the more generous benefit of ours. There is another very big difference. Theirs would drive the deficit higher to the tune of $160 plus billion dollars over 10 years. Why I want to vote against this rule is that we had a proposal in the amendment that I proposed to the Committee on Rules that would have completely paid for the relief we provide. There would have been zero impact on the deficit.
Source
govinfo.gov




