Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I respect my colleague from Wisconsin. I have agreed with him on many issues dealing with fiscal matters. Wouldn't you agree we should have a budget resolution that passed the Senate Budget Committee for consideration by both Democrats and Republicans so we would go through the budget procedure as we have always done for the last 20-some years?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a quick question?

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

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. Absolutely.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. Sure.

Mr. NICKLES. Definitely.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada. I am pleased we will vote soon on the Levin amendment which I strongly support. I understand it will be modified by the Warner amendment, which is also acceptable to this Senator. I am not positive we needed it, but we want to make the administration happy. What is most important is we provide our men and women in the military, in any branch, in any division, with quality equipment, equal to or superior to our competitors. I hate to say this, but it happens to be factual. We are not superior to our adversaries or potential adversaries when it comes to artillery. Fort Sill is the home of the artillery training base for the Army. A couple of weeks ago I visited the base, as I have done several times. I sat in the Paladin, our latest artillery weapon, and fired it with our men and women who were operating the cannon. I realized and was embarrassed at how obsolete it is. The chassis, the basic framework of the wheeled vehicle that they were using, was built in the early 1960s. The cannon was also loaded exactly as it was in the early 1960s. In fact, the cannon is loaded the same way Napoleon was loading cannons. I was surprised, dismayed, and more than convinced we need to upgrade the system. The Crusader serves as an update that modernizes the system. The Crusader has a mechanized, automated loading system. The Paladin came online in 1994, as if it was a new system. The chassis and the loading mechanism is identical to what we had in the early 1960s. It is the same method and mechanism during the time of Napoleon and the Civil War. The individual would manually load the projectile, which in this system 155 millimeters looks like a big bullet. It is very awkward, very heavy, very cumbersome, and weighs about 100 pounds. It is manually lifted from the floor or off a rack, inserted on a loading device, and shoved into the barrel. Then they shove in some packing, basically an explosive device, similar to powder. They shove it in manually behind the projectile. They close the breech. They put in a firing pin with a cord and yank it. It explodes and they open the breech. They take a sponge and they swab the inside of the barrel to make sure it is still not hot and will not have another premature detonation. That is the same method used in the Civil War. The first couple rounds they might be able to do about three a minute. After a couple of minutes, they can only do about one a minute because the barrel gets pretty hot and they have to wear gas masks if they do very many because they are in a closed environment and get exhaust fumes. If these masks are not worn, the fumes can be hazardous to the health of the women and men operating the machines. In other words, this system is very obsolete. It needs to be replaced. I started looking at our competitors. Not one country, not two countries, several countries have a more efficient and more effective system. I am not chairman of the Armed Services Committee and I have not served on that committee. I have great respect for Senators Levin, Warner, and Inhofe, but I cannot think of any major weapons system where we are behind several countries in quality of equipment. I don't want to find our planes are inferior to any other country. I don't want to find our ships are inferior to any other country. I don't want to find our intelligence capability is behind any country. I don't want to find our weapons, our guns, our cannons inferior to any country. Unfortunately, in this case, our cannons are inferior. There are six countries that have greater capability in what I call ground support and cannons than we do. Britain, South Africa, Russia, China, Germany all have cannon artillery systems superior to ours, some in refiring capability, some in accuracy, some in speed. We need a new system. The Army recognized this for a long time and came up with the Crusader. The Crusader is far superior to every system I mentioned. The administration decided to cancel the Crusader. I don't agree with that decision. They made the decision that we needed something lighter. I can go with that as long as we still have a superior system to other countries, to our potential competitors and even our allies. I don't want our systems inferior to the Germans, South Africans--although they are allies--the Russians, and the Chinese. I want us No. 1 militarily. You don't want to be in military conflict and find you are a close second. That is not good enough. We need a superior system. The Crusader would be that. I know some are talking about maybe scaling down the Crusader. The Crusader was originally 80 tons, and now 62, and now going to 40 tons. Some are saying, see if we cannot take it down to 25, 27, or maybe 18 tons. I don't know if that is possible or not. I hope it can be. I would love to see the Crusader be more mobile, wider, able to be deployed more rapidly in regions far and away, maybe in Afghanistan or other areas. I would like to see the capability of this machine enhanced. However, I want to make sure our men and women, if they use this system and it is superior, that it is safe, it is not a death vehicle or one where their lives might be jeopardized. It remains to be seen if we can preserve this level of safety in a future combat system. The Levin amendment modified by the Warner amendment, allows us to accomplish something very important by taking this $475 million and saying it will not be in the Crusader. Or we could keep that option as the Crusader. But we are going to use these funds to closely support a fire system capable of protecting our men and women. We are going to be consulting the Army, individuals who have experience and expertise in this--which, frankly, was not done in the decisionmaking process as far as canceling the Crusader. It is unfortunate that they were not consulted. I am offended by that process. I hope the administration in the future will say if they are going to be canceling the system they will contact the Chief of Staff of the Army, former Chief of Staff of the Army, the Secretary of the Army, and listen to their advice. That did not happen in this case. Senator Levin was talking about how this would be reversed. You might remember a few months ago the administration had money for the Crusader in their budget. Now they have stated they are opposed to it. We need to come up with something better. Regardless of what the replacement may be, I want our military men and women to have a superior system that far exceeds what they have right now. I do not want our men and women being trained in vehicles, in cannons that are inferior to anybody's. Period. That is the bottom line. It is not who does the contracting. It is not who makes it. It is not where they are trained, not where it is fired, not where it is deployed. Our men and women have to have the best. Right now we do not have the best. Under the Levin-Warner amendment, we are going to take that $475 million and, yes, we are going to have reprogramming capability, or consultation, the Secretary can have his ability to change it, and we have 30 days to review it, and it is going to be used for fire support. Presumably, we are going to come up with a better system than we have right now. This is what I expect to be done. I don't want to find out our men and women are still training in inferior systems 20 years from now. If we do not move fairly quickly, that is exactly what they will be doing. Even if we stayed with the Crusader, that was going to be online in the year 2008, 5 or 6 years from now. The future combat system Senator Inhofe and others have talked about can be on line in 2008. We need to be moving forward on this rapidly. There is not a lot of time to waste, not when you think we could be jeopardizing the lives of our men and women. Somebody said maybe we don't need cannons, we can rely on air support power. That is not accurate. Talk to anybody in the military. Do you need an army with tanks and guns? Yes. Do you need an army with weapons for potential combat systems and close fire support? The answer is always yes. Can the air always do it? No. Can the multiple-launch rocket system do it? Not always. Sometimes it can from greater distances, but not close-in, not when you are talking about a few hundred yards, not when you are talking about a mile, not when you are talking about real close-in support. We need a cannon. We need close-in support. This $475 million reprogramming capability is for a future combat system. It could be called Crusader 2; it could be called Crusader 3. We have reduced the weight of the Crusader from 80 tons to 40 tons and still call it the Crusader. Now we are talking about taking it from 40 tons to 20-some tons. If that can do the job while having automatic load capability, have superior user accuracy, have the speed to stay up with our tanks and armored personnel carriers--which right now we cannot do--if we can come up with a lighter and more mobile system that can still protect our troops and provide the fire support that is so necessary--great. I will strongly support it. I hope and expect the reprogramming and the Army intelligence and Army experts in this field will come up with a system that will work. But they need to do it quickly. I hope and expect the leaders on both the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and in the House will work to make sure that happens. Presently, relying on the existing system is just not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory for this Senator. I do not think it would be satisfactory for the Department of Defense, either. I thank my colleagues for their work to keep this money in artillery and in close fire support. I also compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Inhofe, for his leadership. No one has invested more time on defense issues that I am aware of, with maybe the possible exception of Senator Warner, than Senator Inhofe on this committee. And no one has invested more time in support of the Army than Senator Inhofe. I also wish to compliment Congressman J.C. Watts because, likewise, he has invested an enormous amount of time trying to make sure making sure our men and women in the Army have the best artillery around, not just protecting the jobs in Oklahoma. I think both Congressman Watts and Senator Inhofe are to be congratulated for their leadership, trying to make sure the Army as well as the Navy and Air Force and Marines have equipment superior to any potential adversary we might confront. I am happy to support the Levin amendment, modified by Senator Warner. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to make a unanimous consent request, just for the information of our colleagues. I ask unanimous consent the time until 2 p.m. today be for debate with respect to the pending Levin and Warner amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and at 2 p.m. the second-degree amendment be agreed to, and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Levin amendment, as amended, with no other amendments in order prior to the disposition of the Levin amendment.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announced that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would each vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Allen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, let me make a couple comments before the Senator from New York leaves. We passed legislation recently to help the victims of terrorism, including New York City and Oklahoma City, and we reduced their estate tax. I think we exempted estates basically under $8 million and said if they have an estate over $8 million, it would be 18 to 20 percent which, in my opinion, is what the maximum death tax should be. I heard my colleague say there is not a taxable event on death. I happen to disagree. If someone dies, it is a taxable event under current code. Some of us are trying to say a taxable event should not be when somebody dies, but when the assets are sold and sold voluntarily, that means the people initiated a transaction and know what the tax will be. Current law is when someone dies, it is a taxable event. They tax the estate up to 50 percent. My colleagues want to exempt estates of $3 million or $4 million, maybe $7 million if it is a couple and they both die at the same time, but we want half of it after that. The Conrad amendment is not 50 percent, it is 55 percent, if you have a taxable estate between $10 million and $17 million. Fifty-five percent is over half; 50 percent is half. That is a lot. Why should the Federal Government be entitled to take half of somebody's property if they happen to have an estate of $20 million? How is it right to say to New York City and Oklahoma City--your tax rates should be 20 percent for victims, but everybody else has to pay 50 percent? If somebody has three or four restaurants or they have a very large ranch or a nice successful real estate business they are building and growing and their kids want to continue it and we fail to pass the Gramm amendment, we are basically saying that a tax $3 million is enough and maybe $7 million if combined. We are asking the Federal Government to come in and take half. This family exclusion proposal, which was not adopted earlier, would not work. I am embarrassed for my colleagues to say they believe in free enterprise but free enterprise up to an estate of $3 million, and above that the Federal Government gets half; that the Federal Government should confiscate half the property because somebody passes away. We are saying: No, let's not have a taxable event at death; rather, let's have a taxable event when the property is sold. And when the property is sold, you pay the 20 percent capital gains tax. This eliminates lots of legal time and expenses trying to avoid this unnecessary tax. Somebody said: What about the Rockefellers? They do not pay the taxes; they set up foundations. That is what Mr. Gates is doing. That is what the very wealthy people do. They do not pay this tax. The people who pay it are the people who have the farm, the ranch, the small business and somebody dies unexpectedly--I know because it happened to my dad--and Government comes in and says: We want half. Unfortunately, if we adopt the Conrad amendment, the Government will continue taking half. I think it is unconscionable. We should reduce the rates, not just increase the exemption. This only applies to 1 or 2 percent. We should cut the rates to 20 percent, cut it to a voluntary transaction, cut it to a capital gain. Then we have solved the problem; we have eliminated the problem. This is a terrible tax and it is unfair. We are making countless thousands of people not grow their business, not expand because they know they are going to be compiling problems for the future. Why build and expand if you are going to be giving half to the Government and maybe causing all kinds of litigation for your children? Why double, why build, why expand, why grow? I know many people who have worked hard to made enough to get along and live a comfortable life. This tax should not ruin these years of hard work. We should change this tax, and do it by adopting the Gramm-Kyl- Nickles amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and oppose increasing the exemption and then sock it to them and have the Federal Government take half the estate if it happens to be over this deductible amount. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I have about 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first, I compliment my friends, Senator Kyl and Senator Gramm, for their leadership in trying to eliminate one of the most unfair taxes in U.S. history. We have a chance to do it. We have two proposals that are before us. One is by Senator Gramm and Senator Kyl, of which I am a cosponsor, to repeal the death tax so there will not be a taxable event on somebody's death. Now there will be a taxable event when the property is sold, also known as a capital gains tax. That is 20 percent. That ought to be enough. We are trying to make permanent the repeal in the year 2010. Let's make that permanent. That is our objective. Under that scenario, if there is property in an estate--let's say it is a business, a manufacturing company, maybe it is a farm or ranch, maybe it is a restaurant in downtown Washington, DC. That restaurant may sell for $5 million. Maybe it is a second or third generation restaurant, Mortons, and it is worth several million dollars. If the son or daughter takes over that business and they do not sell it, there is not a taxable event. But if they decide it is too much of a hassle and they do not want to continue the operation and they sell it, then there is a taxable event. It will be taxed as capital gains at 20 percent instead of under Senator Conrad's proposal of 55 percent. I probably shocked somebody when I said 55 percent. I read Senator Conrad's proposal as 50 percent. He has an exemption of $3 million, and in a few years $3.5 million, but above that is taxable at 50 percent. If you have an estate between $10 million and $17 million, there is another 5 percent kicker, and so the Federal Government will get 55 percent. Why in the world would the Federal Government be entitled to take over half of somebody's property for which they worked their entire lives? Should the Federal Government come in and take half or over half? That is what is in the Conrad proposal. We have two competing proposals. What will the impact be? Look at the businesses in Washington, Oregon, or Maine. We can all think of very successful people who have built businesses and have employed a lot of people. A lot of those are worth more than $3.5 million. Senator Conrad's proposal says we want half of the property's worth when somebody passes away. I happen to think that is absolutely wrong. Whether the value of that business is $3 million or $100 million, if somebody wants to continue operating that business, why should the Government come in and say: No, stop, we want half; somebody died; stop; we want the Federal Government to come in and take half? That is what Senator Conrad's proposal is. I object to that. I learned the hard way. My grandfather started a business. My dad built it up. He died when he was pretty young, and the Government came in and said: Stop, we want half. We fought the Government for 7 years. Frankly, the business was a small, family-held business, and Uncle Sam said: We want half of it. We objected to that and we fought them for years. We ended up settling. They ended up getting a lot more than they should have. The Government's purpose and function should be to protect our property, not confiscate it. If one thinks about it, under the Conrad proposal, if they get half--and let's say it is over $3 million,-- somebody passes away this year, and then in the next generation somebody else passes away 20 years later, and they get half again. What a disincentive to grow, build, and expand. There are countless generations across the country trying to grow, build and expand by employing more people and creating more products. I think of a company in Perry, Oklahoma called Ditch Witch. They manufacture trench makers. These machines are used to lay cable, phone lines, pipelines, help build roads, among many other uses. Perry, OK, has a population probably of 12,000 people, of which Ditch Witch employs a couple thousand. It is a great little family-owned business. Why should the Government come in and say: Stop, the proprietor passed away; we want half of it? What about those thousands of jobs? Look at another company called Bama Pies. They make pies in Tulsa, OK. They make millions of pies, including all the pies for McDonald's. They employ hundreds, if not thousands, of people. It is a closely held business. Why should the Government come in and take half because the entrepreneur who built that business happens to pass away and the value of the business is in the millions? I do not think they should. That is what we are talking about. Should the Government come in and say, oh, well, you have been relatively successful, and because your estate is in the upper maybe 1 percent or 2 percent, it is okay if we sock it to you? What is right about that? What is fair about it? Where are the jobs that are in that kind of an ordeal? We think the Government can operate it better? Sorry, you have to sell it to pay estate taxes. We hope the company will survive in its next form. Maybe it will. Maybe it will not. There are a lot of operations that cannot withstand that type of a heavy tax. A farm or a ranch is another good example. You might have a fairly decent farm or ranch maybe adjacent to a large city and so its property valuation is very high. This value could maybe exceed it's agriculture valuation, or the profits or the money that would be generated from the agriculture. Just because it happens to be next to San Diego it is worth millions on the valuation sheets. Maybe somebody says, well, I want to continue farming it and ranching it; I am second or third generation. And we are going to say, no, we are sorry; we have valuated this, and because it happens to be next to San Diego, it is worth millions of dollars so the Federal Government is entitled to take half. They cannot pay half by continuing their agricultural operation, so the only way they can pay taxes is to sell it. What kind of victory is that? We have just broken up a family business, a family farm, or a family ranch. Why? So Uncle Sam can take half that property? Maybe that property is not worth near as much in that present function. What right do we have to do that? Some taxes are wrong, and this tax happens to be one of those that are wrong. The power to tax, it has often been said, is the power to destroy. If the Government can take half--and in the amendment of Senator Conrad, the Government can take half. If you have a taxable estate over $3 million, then they have taken away a lot of your--maybe destroyed a lot of incentive to build, grow, expand, and employ. I think of so many entrepreneurs who have built and expanded businesses that are now worth millions of dollars. I look at this amendment and it says: Stop; do not grow anymore because Uncle Sam is going to come in and take half of it. We have decided that is our property and we can handle it better than you can. How many employees will the Government hire out of that type of operation? I completely disagree with the premise espoused of, let's keep the rates at 50 or 55 percent. Again, I mention the rate. Under the proposal of Senator Conrad, there is a maximum rate because he has this bonus 5 percent hit if your taxable estate is between $10 million and $17 million. Well, $10 million and $17 million sounds like a lot if that is your disposable income, but if that is your investment that you have grown in plant and equipment, and you are putting the money back in the business year after year, it may not be that big. You may not make that much money. You may have a business that is worth $20 million but it may not make very much money. Yet, under Senator Conrad's amendment, too bad: You pass away, we have a taxable event, and Uncle Sam gets half. If it is a $20 million business, take away your $3 million deductible and you have a $17 million business. Under his proposal, half of it goes to Uncle Sam--actually, 55 percent of the $17 million. The Government is going to get almost $9 million out of a $20 million business. Congratulations, you are really successful. If this is the case, where are the liquid assets in this $20 million business? You do not have them. You have invested them in plant and equipment, in machinery, in jobs. You did not have them sitting around in CDs and cash, so you have to sell the business to pay the taxes. That is what the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota is. It says, Government, you are entitled to take half; and many of us say, no, you are not. This tax is unfair. It needs to be repealed. We took a giant step in that direction when we phased down the tax and repealed it in the year 2010. We need to make it permanent, and that is exactly what the Gramm-Kyl-Nickles amendment does, makes it permanent. Senator Conrad's amendment says, no, we do not want to do that. We will increase the exemption a little bit and then the Government is entitled to get half. I hope my colleagues will reject that type of unfair tax policy that needs to be repealed. Even if it applies to one small percentage of the American population, it is not right to take it. One can say, well, is it right to take 100 percent of somebody's property if it only affects a few? I think of that as theft, rather than good, sound tax policy. I heard some people complain, what about the effects on deficits? I started looking at spending. I always hear when we talk about taxes, but when we talk about spending we do not hear about people talking about, what is the impact on Social Security? What is the impact on future deficits? Between the years 2000 and 2001, budget authority went up from $584 billion to $664 billion. That is a 14-percent increase. Between the years 2001 and 2002, it went up to $710 billion. That is a 7-percent increase. That was before we started working on the supplemental. The budget we are working on now that just passed--if we include the supplemental that just passed Congress--is $768 billion. If we add that together, that is an 8-percent increase over the previous year. So we are compounding spending at 14, 7, 8 percent. Then I look at some of the other requests. The farm bill that we passed about a month ago was $82 billion over the baseline. We are paying cotton farmers 72 cents per pound when we look at cotton that is selling for 32 cents. The market price for cotton is 32 cents, but we are going to pay farmers 72 cents for 6 years. Look at railroad retirement. We are writing out a check for $15 billion for railroad retirement, something we have never done before. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program we passed had $11 billion of new entitlements, where the Federal Government is going to pick up 60 percent of health care costs for people who happen to be uninsured, unemployed. We are going to have a new wage entitlement insurance program under trade adjustment assistance. The supplemental was $3.9 billion over the President's request. The supplemental was almost $4 billion above the President's request. Trade adjustment assistance had $11.1 billion over the President's request in new entitlements. The farm bill was $82.8 billion over the baseline. Railroad retirement is $15 billion. So there is a lot of new spending in excess of about $120 billion that Congress has passed in the last few months. Where is the outrage on the impact on deficits on these bills? When we start talking about not taking away half of somebody's property when they die and reject this tax policy, perhaps we should have the tax policy be enacted when their property is sold by their beneficiaries. Then there is a taxable event and that taxable event is taxed at the capital gains rate, which is 20 percent. With this method, you would eliminate these billions of dollars that are being spent presently to avoid the tax. To everyone who knows estate planning, the lawyers and the accountants, this is an enormous field, which in my opinion uses a lot of minds in a productive venture to avoid a very unfair tax. If we said, let us have a tax on capital gains, it would simplify taxation. I think we would see a lot of businesses grow if they did not receive this signal, stop, do not grow anymore because we are going to take half of everything you have. The economy would respond in a very positive way. We would create thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of jobs if we could repeal this unfair tax. I urge my colleagues, when we vote tomorrow, when we have final passage, to vote in favor of the Gramm-Kyl-Nickles amendment to repeal permanently this unfair death tax.