PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Returned to the Calendar. {pursuant to the order of April 23, 2002}.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 14, 2001
Death Tax Elimination Act - Repeals the estate tax, gift tax, and the tax on generation-skipping transfers, effective January 1, 2011. Provides for annual reductions of the tax until such date.Increases the unified estate and gift tax credit to $1.3 million.Repeals the estate and gift tax provisions applicable to family-owned businesses.Amends provisions concerning the special rules for allocation of the generation-skipping tax (GST) exemption to provide, as a general rule, that: (1) if any individual makes an indirect skip during such individual's lifetime, any unused portion of such individual's GST exemption shall be allocated to the property transferred to the extent necessary to make the inclusion ratio for such property zero; and (2) if the amount of the indirect skip exceeds such unused portion, the entire unused portion shall be allocated to the property transferred.Declares that, if a trust is severed in a qualified severance, the trusts resulting from such severance shall be treated as separate trusts thereafter.Revises valuation rules for gifts for which a gift tax return was filed or deemed allocation made. Provides that, if an allocation of the GST exemption to any transfers of property is deemed to have been made at the close of an estate tax inclusion period, the value of the property shall be its value at such time.Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe circumstances and procedures under which extensions of time will be granted to make an allocation of GST exemption or an election not to apply specified allocation requirements to certain lifetime direct skips, indirect skips, or transfers to a particular trust.Increases the permissible number of partners or shareholders in a closely held business for purposes of eligibility for an extension of estate tax payments.
People & committees
Rep. Dunn, Jennifer [R-WA-8] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Returned to the Calendar. {pursuant to the order of April 23, 2002}.
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S5398-5434)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5343-5358)
See H.R.1836.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 33.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 274 - 154 (Roll no. 84).
House roll call 84 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 274 - 154 (Roll no. 84).
House roll call 84 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 192 - 235 (Roll No. 83). (text: CR H1456)
House roll call 83 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
Floor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. Pomeroy moved to recommit with instructions to Ways and Means.
The previous question on the amendment and on the bill as amended, was ordered pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 111.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 111, the House proceeded with one hour of debate on the Rangel amendment in the nature of a substitute.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 8.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. Measure will be considered read. A specified amendment is in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 111. (consideration: CR H1424-1458)
Rule H. Res. 111 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 111 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. Measure will be considered read. A specified amendment is in order.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 26.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 107-37. (text of measure as reported: CR 4/4/2001 H1424-1426)
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 107-37.(text of measure as reported: CR 4/4/2001 H1424-1426)
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held Prior to Introduction (Feb 13, 2001).
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.8 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.8 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.8 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.8 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.