Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 336 submitted earlier today by Senator Snowe.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, maybe my colleague from Iowa did not understand what we voted on earlier. Earlier we voted on repeal of the tax on Social Security which was passed by the Clinton-Gore administration, passed by Vice President Gore because he broke the tie, passed by every Democrat, but not one Republican voted for it. We had 58 votes, I believe, in the Senate to repeal it today. Those are the facts. There was a tax increase on Social Security that passed in 1993, and it was passed by every Democrat. Today we had an overwhelming majority who voted to repeal it. Those are the facts. Now we have an amendment before us that says let's double count interest savings even though we count the interest on Social Security surpluses. Let's double count and let's pretend that is going to make Social Security more solvent and, in the process, let's add a whole bunch of new benefits and see if we can't buy more votes and tell people we are going to give them something even though they know it is not going to happen. It has not been considered in the Finance Committee and Ways and Means Committee. Even though they know it is irresponsible and Social Security has big problems coming up in 13, 14 years, they say: Let's put more IOUs in and pretend it will make it more solvent. The budget experts say it will not work. The President in his own budget statement said it will not work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, a few comments. Our colleagues are proposing a tax credit for long-term health care. The Senate has passed that in a couple of bills. We passed it on minimum wage. We passed it on the Patients' Bill of Rights, giving an above-the-line deduction. There is a difference between a deduction and a credit. By a credit, they are saying: You should pay no taxes whatsoever. We are saying: You should get a deduction. There is a difference. With a credit, you are saying that is a better priority. The Federal Government has decided that is a better priority than your health care because people don't get a credit for their health care deductions. We are going to say this is more important. I think it is equally important. As a matter of fact, the bill we passed said we should have an above-the-line deduction for health care and for long-term health care costs. We want to encourage both. But to say that one is more important than the other, as this bill does, by saying that long-term health care is more important than health care insurance, is a mistake. Most people would say they would rather have health care. I noticed my colleague added expensing for self-employed. I am sure my friends are aware that I am very much a proponent of that. We have led the fight to make that happen. Incidentally, we have already passed that as well. We passed that on the minimum wage bill. We passed it on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I assure my colleagues, before any minimum wage bill passes, this is going to be part of it. What my colleagues are not telling people is, they are including with it an amendment that basically guts the estate tax provision that we have in this bill. You go in and tell employers: We want to make sure that you pay estate taxes. And if you pay estate taxes, your minimum rate, the beginning rate, under the Democrat proposal, is 37 percent. If you have a taxable estate of $2 million, you will be paying 37 percent. I don't think they would think that is a very good deal. Small businesspeople would say: You didn't do me any favors. I urge my colleagues, at the appropriate time tomorrow, to vote against this amendment. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I want to be very clear. I can think of a female entrepreneur in Oklahoma building a business. It has been very successful. She built it basically from scratch. I am going to guess it is worth $100 million. For this hypothetical example, it is worth $100 million. I bet it is. This business has worldwide sales in pies. She will know who I am talking about. They have had great success. The value of that company probably 20 years ago was probably less than $1 million. Today, for this purpose, it is worth $100 million. Let's say she is the sole owner of the company and she dies. Under the Democrat proposal of my colleague from Wisconsin, the tax would be 55 percent. Once you get to the higher levels, you don't get to phase in. That is $55 million--55 percent. Under his proposal, also you would lose the stepped-up basis, which is kind of complicated. Basically, it means you go back to the zero basis of what it was. Since the value was almost $1 million, or nothing, 20 years ago, you are going to have to pay another 20 percent on top of that. For this $100 million corporation, say, her sole survivor who wants to inherit this company and keep it running has to pay a tax bill in the neighborhood of about $75 million out of a $100 million company. What is right about that? What is fair about that? Nothing, zero. Again, taxes should be uniform. They should be fair. This amendment is written to demagog. This amendment says: Yes. These tax cuts are really going to benefit people making even over $100 million. My point is that the Tax Code should be fair and uniform. If we are not going to have death taxes, they should not apply to anybody. Conversely, if we eliminate the tax on death for everybody, including the people over $100 million and under $100 million, all would pay capital gains. So when and if that business is sold there would be a capital gains tax. It would be 20 percent. If you have a $100 million business, or gain in property, and they sell it, the Federal Government would get $20 million. Isn't that enough? Why in the world would my colleague think the Federal Government under present law and under my colleague's proposal should get over 50 percent? Why would the Federal Government be entitled to 60 percent or 75 percent of that business under his proposal? He taxes them twice. Under the proposal of my colleague from Wisconsin, the estate would pay twice: once at the death based on the appraised value, and again when the asset is sold without a stepped-up basis. You couldn't be more unfair. If you are going to go to 75 percent, why don't you make it 100 percent? This idea of it being the resource of the Government when somebody dies belongs in the Kremlin. It doesn't belong in the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I will, but not right now. I want to move on and finish this bill tonight. Again, I compliment my colleague from Delaware and my colleague from New York. I personally haven't agreed with the process under which we are considering this bill. I compliment the managers for their patience. The hour is late. I think we still have two or three other amendments to consider. I hope we can finish those. We can vote on these tomorrow. We can pass this bill tomorrow, and I hope lay the predicate and foundation for passing the elimination of the marriage penalty as well. If so, we will have done a couple of days of good work. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES. If you are making it a refundable credit, you are making this more of a priority than health care. You are saying this is a more important item than food, in some cases, because you are having the Federal Government write a check to pay for it. We don't do that with health care. I understand your desire to do some things for child health care. We happen to agree with much of that because we passed it last year in the bill the President vetoed. But now you are trying to make it refundable by having Uncle Sam write a check for it. I personally think you are going too far with that amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if it is a refundable credit, we have now turned a tax cut into a spending bill, I would assume spending billions of dollars. Again, we haven't had a chance to review the amendment. We haven't had it scored. We will review it. We will find out if a point of order lies against it. I happen to think that one does. We will find out when the chairman of the Budget Committee makes that decision tomorrow. If it is a refundable tax credit, it is a spending bill. This is a way for Uncle Sam to be writing checks. This is a way for us to be spending more money. I question the wisdom of doing that, especially without a chance to review it and consider it.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes from leader time. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments concerning the proposal, but also on the issue. I, for one, am disappointed that we had to file cloture on a motion to proceed to take up this bill. That took a long time. I am disappointed to see that now we may have a list of 10 amendments on each side, most of which have very little, if anything, to do with the underlying issue of estate tax repeal or reduction. In other words, it is unfortunate, but a lot of people want to play politics, or they want to have a lot of different amendments that have nothing to do with this issue. The American people want tax relief. They want to eliminate one of the most unfair taxes in America. Some people ask: Why are you doing this? Doesn't it only apply to 2 percent of the American people? The tax applies to a lot more than 2 percent of the American people. A lot of people aren't aware of the fact that they may well have to pay the tax. It is a very punitive tax. Again, I have heard my Democrat colleagues say they are willing to increase the exemptions so we can increase the number of people who pay zero and, therefore, make the problem go away. The tax doesn't go away. We are dealing with this tax on death. The Federal Government is saying, if you die and you happen to have an estate right now above the exemption amount, the Federal Government is going to come in and take at least 37 percent of what you have left if you have a taxable estate. If you have a taxable estate of $1 million, the Government wants 39 percent; if it is $3 million, 55 percent. That is pretty high. If you have a taxable estate of between $10 million and $17 million, the rate is 60 percent. What is fair about that, whether it is 1 percent or 10 percent of the American people paying it? What is fair about the Government taking 60 percent of somebody's business or their property, for which they worked their entire life. For the Government to come in and say, ``We want over half of it''? Absolutely nothing is right about that. Where is the justice in society, even if it is only one person? Shouldn't we have a Tax Code that is fair for all? Is it fair to say 1 percent or 2 percent or 5 percent, we are going to take half of your property? Is that justified? I thought Government was supposed to protect our property not confiscate it. An individual should not be subject to extra burden because they have been successful. Maybe you start a small business and it grows, and you have no interest in taking the money out of the business. You want it to grow. You want your kids to take over or maybe your grandkids to take it over. There are millions of businesses in America today where the second or third generations want to grow, build, and expand. They are not trying to sell it so they can hand their kids a lot of wealth. They want their kids to have a business where they can continue to grow it, employ more people, and provide a product and a service. Then Uncle Sam comes in and says: Sorry you are too successful. We want 50 percent or 60 percent of what you have. That is currently the law. If we adopt the Democrats' substitute, it will stay that way. Last year, only 902 out of 47,000 estates, as pointed out by Chairman Roth, qualified as small businesses or as family farms. A whole lot of farms and a whole lot of businesses that think they would qualify for the exemption will find out that the IRS has written these regulations pretty tight, and they don't qualify. All of a sudden, their business is hit with a very high tax. Let's say a restaurant business is bigger than $5 million. Say you have a couple of restaurants in Denver or maybe in Delaware and you build a nice restaurant worth a couple million dollars. You work hard every night. Maybe you have two restaurants, and the net value of the estate is $6 million. Uncle Sam is going to come in and say, under the Democrats' proposal, maybe we will give you a $2 million exemption, but for $4 million of it, you are going to be taxed. Do you start the tax rate at 18 percent? No. Under the Democrats' proposal, you start at the taxable rate of 37 percent. By the third million dollars, you are at 55 percent. The tax that you are going to owe is $1.5 million. The restaurant doesn't have it. How do you pay? You have to sell it. Instead of somebody being able to keep that restaurant and pass it on to the third generation, you have to sell it because you do not have the $1.5 million you owe in taxes. It may be worth $3 million, but you do not have $1.5 million in cash. Now you have to sell it, and the Government is responsible for destroying a business. Maybe someone else will pick it up; maybe not. Maybe the person who picks it up doesn't have the same interest in the employees or the same real interest in the business. Who knows? My point is that Government shouldn't be confiscating property because somebody dies. The proposal that passed with overwhelming bipartisanship in the House, by a two-thirds majority, two to one, said eliminates the death tax. Let's make it taxable when the property is sold. When someone dies, his or her children should be able to inherit the restaurant. If their kids want to keep operating the restaurant, they should not be taxed. The tax should be incurred when the restaurant is sold. It should be taxed at a capital gains rate of 20 percent instead of 55 or 60 percent. That makes more sense. When they sell it, guess what? They have the cash. They can pay the tax. The tax rate is reasonable. It makes sense. It is 20 percent, not 55. So the idea that we are going to exempt this greater percentage of the estate doesn't eliminate the unfairness of the tax. It doesn't even do what President Clinton said that he may be willing to do. The President, spoke to the Governors on July 10, just a couple of days ago, and said: ``We provided some estate tax relief in 1997. I really didn't think it was enough. I think there should be more.'' I was involved in the conference in 1997. I will tell you that Secretary Rubin totally opposed this measure in estate tax relief throughout the entire process. Assistant Secretary Summers was also completely opposed to it. For the President to say he really wanted to do more is factually incorrect, or maybe his Treasury Secretary was not representing his interests. Maybe his Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Larry Summers, who at that time in 1997 said, ``In terms of substantive arguments, the evidence is about as bad as it gets. When it comes to the estate tax, there is no case other than selfishness.'' That was Larry Summers position in 1997. That was when we were negotiating the tax bill in 1997, on which the President now says he wanted to do more. I find that to be very interesting. The President also said to the Governors--``I mean, you could argue the rates are too high because they are higher than the maximum income rates now, and that is something that didn't used to be the case.'' That is right. The maximum estate tax rates that I just mentioned go up to 55 percent and 60 percent for the biggest estates, because we phased out the gradual phasing in of the rates. For a taxable estate between $10 million and $17 million, the rate is 55 percent; above $17 million, it is 60 percent. The maximum personal income tax rate is 39.6 percent--actually it is higher than that because the President eliminates other deductions and exemptions and has no limit on Medicare tax--he is implying he would be willing to reduce the maximum estate tax from 55 to 39.6. That is a step in the right direction, because rates are the problem. The Democratic proposal does not effect the rates. It only increases exemption. If we have an estate beyond that exemption--and there are millions of farms and ranches and businesses above it; they are $2 million, $4 million, $6 million--they are hit with the rate. Because of the unified credit, you are taxed at 37 percent. What we did in the Republican proposal that passed the House, was change the unified credit to an exemption. Once a person is above the exemption amount, they begin paying estate taxes at 18 percent, not 37 percent. The bipartisan proposal that passed the House, that we will vote on, that Chairman Roth has been pushing, gives tax relief for people who pay estate taxes; they start paying at 18 percent instead of 37 percent. We changed the credit to an exemption and that benefits the lower value of estates that are taxable. This rhetoric that we are exempting the big estates is hogwash. Big estates pay capital gains when those properties are sold. They will pay when that property is sold--not when someone dies. That rate will be 20 percent. That makes sense. The tax is paid when the property is sold, not when someone dies. Too many people are faced with the very unfortunate circumstance which I faced when my dad died. I was young. My father passed away, and we had a manufacturing company. The book value of that manufacturing company was zero. The Government claimed it was worth a lot. We fought the IRS for 7 years over the value of the company. We ended up writing a big check and settling with the IRS. The Government wanted a big chunk of the Nickles Machine Corporation. They said it was worth much more than we did. How do we know what the value is unless we sell it? The Government was trying to force us to sell the company. I am afraid this is happening today in millions of cases all across the country. People are aware that this may happen, so they start planning: What shall I do? Maybe I will start giving stock to my kids. Maybe the kids want to be in the business, maybe they don't want to be in the business. There are schemes. People who have big estates create foundations. They do all kinds of things to avoid the tax. There are millions of Americans who don't know the tax is coming. If they do, they are worried about it, or they contain their plans, or they don't grow their businesses. That is yet another negative consequence of the death tax. They say: Why should I grow this business? I will pass away, and the Government will get over half. Why should we ``grow it'' if the Government is going to take half of it? As a result many new jobs are not created. Many economic transactions do not take place because of the Government's heavy hand coming in. That is in addition to the fact that they taxed the property when it was originally received or as it earned income year by year. This is one of the most unfair taxes on the books--maybe the most unfair tax we have on the books today. It needs to be repealed. An exemption will not cure the problem. It may garner support from some groups, but it is not adequate. Anybody who reads the definition of ``farm'' and ``business'' will realize they do not qualify for the exemption. The Democrat substitute is not feasible and it should not pass. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Democrat substitute and vote in favor of the Roth amendment. I hope we will be voting on both before too long and I hope those are the only two votes we have on this bill. I understand we may be voting on twenty amendments regarding taxes in general. I think we should be considering amendments relevant to estate taxes only. These extraneous amendments do not help the process, they just slow it down. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman of the Budget Committee. He is exactly right. The President's original proposal requested $15 billion. Then he came back and said $31 billion. The Budget Committee started at $20 billion and ended up at $40 billion. Now people are saying we need $80 billion. We don't know what the program is. We have no idea how much it costs. We have no idea if it is duplicating coverage already in the private sector. It makes no sense where a program is not going to be effective for 3 years. That may be good politics, but it is fiscally irresponsible. I join my colleague in his point of order.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the way I look at the Tax Code, I think it should be fair; it should be uniform. It is interesting to hear people say: This tax only applies to 2 percent, so let's sock it to them. They have been enormously successful. So what is the right rate? Is it 55 percent or 60 percent, as it is on Americans today? Are my colleagues aware of the fact that if you have a $10 million taxable estate, the death tax is 60 percent? I know my colleague says he picked a higher figure, $100 million, and that is only 55 percent. Incidentally, he didn't mention it in his comments, but he also eliminates the stepped-up basis. That means you will have a much greater capital gains tax. So you have a 55-percent rate and you have capital gains. It is a really heavy hit. Uncle Sam will get over half. What is fair? It is easy to demagog and say those guys are supporting tax cuts for the wealthy. That is hogwash. What is fair? If somebody works their entire life and has enormous success and builds up a company--and say it is worth $100 million, which is great--and the principal dies and their kids want to operate that plant, they don't want to sell it. Uncle Sam is entitled to 55 percent of it? I don't think so. What is fair about that or uniform about it? I don't think it makes sense. Maybe they want to continue that. I can think of a lot of businesses--for example, Bechtel Construction is one of the world's premier construction companies; it happens to be a private business. I am sure it is worth a lot more than this. If the principal owner dies and his kids want to run it, the Government can say, no, we want half. What is right about that? Maybe I shouldn't mention anybody by name. They have never contacted me on this issue. My point is, where is the Government's right to say that? He said we are squandering ``our'' resources. How is that the Federal Government's resources? They are the ones who built up these companies, but the Federal Government is entitled to take over half of it when somebody dies? Don't say, well, those estates are getting away from taxes because, under our proposal, when the property is sold, they pay capital gains. That rate is 20 percent; it is not 55 percent. To me, it is a lot more manageable. That is a taxable event just as it would be on any American. But it is basically when the property is sold, not when somebody dies. We want to eliminate the death tax for all Americans, not just wealthy Americans. They should not have to pay a tax on death. The taxable event would be on the sale of the property--when and if they sell the property. The kids would receive the property and keep running the business; there is no tax. If they sell the business, there is a tax. They pay capital gains. Under my colleague's proposal, they pay a whole lot more tax because he eliminates the stepped-up basis as well. You keep the extra high rates, and you also have no stepped-up basis and capital gain. So you hit them really hard. Why don't we just make it 100 percent? Let's just eliminate anybody who accumulates wealth that happens to be over $100 million. Then we won't have the entrepreneurs; we won't have the Microsofts; we won't have the Oracles or the other high-tech companies; we won't have the young entrepreneurs who are building and expanding these businesses in our country. You can go to a lot of countries that don't have taxes on estates. It is pretty easy today to start a new business in high technology. You can go to other countries easily because they want the entrepreneurs; they will welcome them in because they realize that is the engine of a growing economy, and it is fantastic, so they will give great benefits. We have one of the highest estate taxes in the world. Some of my colleagues say: Let's only have it on the wealthy, successful people; we will really sock it to them. I think that is really unfair. The Tax Code should be uniform and fair. As a matter of fact, I think of the Constitution where I read that the Tax Code should be uniform. Now when people say we have to increase the exemption so much that we will sock it to the wealthy, the rates already at 55 percent--60 percent for some Americans--that is way too high. We say, wait a minute, the Tax Code should be uniform. Let's eliminate the tax on death on all Americans-- not just wealthy Americans but on all Americans--and have the taxable event when the property is sold on wealthy Americans as well. They can pay 20 percent just as any other American does. To me, that is fair, uniform and, frankly, would probably raise more money because wealthy people have figured out lots of ways to get around estate taxes--through foundations and other little gimmicks. They hire lots of attorneys and successful people and pay them lots of money every year to make sure they pay no tax. It would be very interesting to know how much money is utilized--some say wasted--but generated to avoid this tax or how many businesses aren't expanded to avoid this tax. If my colleague's amendment would pass, how many successful people would flee to another country to expand their business and grow their business so they would not be faced with the situation where they worked their entire life for success, and they happen to die, and Uncle Sam says: Thank you very much; we want 55 percent. Thank you for your efforts, but those are ``our" resources. Ours? The Government didn't build that company, but the Government is entitled to over half of the estate. The power to tax is the power to destroy. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment at the appropriate time tomorrow.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I mention to my colleagues, I think everyone is aware the minority leader yielded 5 minutes to his colleagues on each of these minutes. I do not like to do it, but it is important to point out some of the facts. I appreciate my colleague from Texas pointing them out. This amendment and the Vice President's proposal is one of the riskiest, maybe one of the most deceitful I have seen in my years in Congress. It basically says we should have double accounting of interest. It says we are going to take the interest savings from debt reduction and apply that to Social Security, as if we are going to make Social Security more solvent. It would not do that. I will give some quotes from people who studied the proposal. One is from David Walker, Comptroller General of GAO: [The Clinton-Gore proposal] does not come close to saving Social Security. The proposal he is referring to is the Clinton-Gore proposal. Under the President's proposal, the changes to the Social Security program will be more perceived than real: although the trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the proposal, nothing about the program has changed. Dan Crippen, Director of CBO: Those transfers would have no effect on the ability of the Federal Government to meet the obligations of those programs. The transfer would not, as some have asserted, strengthen Medicare or Social Security. At most, they might have the opposite effect of imparting a false sense of security. It is double accounting. I have a statement from CBO's ``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2001.'' On page 67, it talks about the interest savings transfers to Social Security. It says: The Social Security trust funds already receive credits for interest on their accumulated balances under current law. They already get interest on the surpluses. That is already current law. It continues: The proposed transfers would simply add extra interest credits on top of those that would be provided anyway. . . . The transfers themselves would have no economic significance because they would flow out of one government fund and into another. If we want to say we are making the Social Security fund more solvent by adding more IOUs, we should do what the Senator from Texas did. Why stop at $100 billion? I read that the Senator's amendment will add $250 billion annually after 2015. Why not right now? Let's just add $5 trillion. We have about $10 trillion of unfunded liability in Social Security. Let's just say we have a Government IOU, $10 trillion. It is fully funded. In the year 2012 or 2015, there is going to be a shortage. There is going to be more money going out than coming in, and those IOUs will not be able to pay one check--not one. At that point in time, the Government is going to have to borrow more money, raise taxes, or cut benefits. In other words, we have not changed the program, and putting in more IOUs will not pay one benefit, will not pay one Social Security check. If my colleagues are interested in the solvency--my colleague is saying let's also increase benefits; let's increase retirement benefits; let's increase survivor benefits; let's increase benefits for people not paying into the system and increase survivor benefits, none of which had hearings before the Finance Committee. Talk about being irresponsible and playing politics with Social Security. This amendment does it in the worst way. This amendment needs to fail and, frankly, the Vice President should be ashamed of this proposal. I hope our colleagues will vote against it, and I urge our colleagues to vote against it tomorrow morning. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of leader time to speak on this amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes under leader time. For the information of my colleague from Connecticut, I think that a point of order lies against the bill. That will be made again by the chairman of the Budget Committee tomorrow after it has been checked. We haven't had enough time to review the amendment. For example, we are talking about changing child care tax credits. I ask my colleagues from Connecticut: Is this a refundable tax credit as proposed?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. In a moment I will. The facts are, the cost over 10 years, which is the most we ever use, is $104 billion. I heard them say it is $750 billion. I do not know from where they are grabbing these figures. If we use that kind of analogy, it would be fun to see how much the tax increase of 1993 cost because if this tax cut is $750 billion over the next 20-some-odd years, I would hate to think how much the cost of the tax increase the Democrats passed in 1993 is. The facts are, the estate tax repeal is $104 billion over the next 10 years. That is what passed the House. Hopefully, that is what the Senate will pass today, tomorrow, or in the near future.

Mr. NICKLES. Not on my time. I will be happy to yield under the Senator's time. I only had 4 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues from Illinois and North Dakota, we have rules in the Senate, and that is to go through the Chair. The dialogs are interesting, but we are supposed to go through the Chair, and that has not happened in a while. I want to correct some of the factual misstatements that were just made. My colleagues said we want to bring up the repeal of the death tax and offer no amendments. That is not correct. We have told our friends on the Democratic side that we will allow them to offer a substitute. They can have relevant amendments. We are willing to enter into time agreements to pass this bill. Frankly, what they want to do is unload an agenda they cannot pass. My colleagues mentioned that we will not allow them a debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We already voted on it a couple of times. We voted on it last year, and we voted on it twice in the last month. The problem is they have a flawed proposal that will not pass and cannot pass. We voted on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We voted on minimum wage. For them to say, instead of voting to repeal the death tax, which we are hopefully going to do, they have a lot of other things on which they would rather vote--we have given them votes on almost every issue that has been mentioned. On the death tax, we have said--and I will propound a unanimous consent request--we will have an amendment on each side; we will have three amendments on each side; we will consider their alternatives. My colleague from Illinois said let's have an exemption, not change the rates; let's vote on this issue. We are willing to do that. The problem is our colleagues on the Democratic side really do not want a tax cut, period. We are trying to eliminate the death tax so there will not be a tax on death. What there will be is a tax on the sale of the property when whomever inherits the property sells it. We will eliminate the taxable event on someone's death. This is a very significant and I believe one of the most positive things we can do if we want to help the economy, if we want fairness. We are trying to help the small business people, the Democrats say; the Democrats are willing to do that. Hogwash. I used to run a small business. I did not want it to be small; I wanted it to be big. I do not know if it would meet the Democrats' definition. A lot of us really do believe we should eliminate the tax on someone's death and turn it into a taxable event when the property is sold. If individuals who receive this business or receive this property do not sell it, there will not be a taxable event. When they do sell it, there will be a tax, and that tax will be capital gains. That tax rate is 20 percent, not 39 percent, not 55 percent. I want to correct a misstatement just made. We are willing to enter into time agreements. We are willing to consider relative amendments, substitutes. If they want to have a substitute that has an exemption, fine; let's vote on it. If they want to vote on an alternative, let's do it. We are willing to do it. But to say we are not willing to consider amendments and that it is ``take our proposal that passed the House''----

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I said the majority leader, to my knowledge, is willing to enter into a time agreement and has given it to the minority leader. It said we will have relevant amendments. I have a list of amendments on prescription drugs, long-term health care, Medicare, retirement--in other words, a lot of things on the Democrats' agenda that have not been accomplished. I said relevant amendments pertaining to the death tax and, unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have not been willing to comply or agree. I had hoped we would have had a little less partisan exchange on a Tuesday morning. Let's go back to the Cloakroom and come up with two or three relevant amendments dealing with this issue and vote. That is the way we should work.