THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   I almost hesitate to say this, but when I look at the young people in front of me who work so hard for us every day, they are the ones who will not get their Social Security if we are not responsible, if we do not make sure we put first things first.

   According to the trustees, we can fix the Social Security program so that it will remain solvent for 75 years if we

[Page: S6433]  GPO's PDF

   That is why it makes sense to see to our long-term obligations for Social Security and Medicare before we enact either tax cuts or yes, spending measures that would spend whatever that surplus might be. Before we enter into new obligations, we need to steward the people's resources to meet the commitments we already have.

   I will tell you, when I think of Social Security, the generations that come after us, that is commitment No. 1.

   Which is putting first things first: saving Social Security and Medicare or cutting estate taxes for the very rich?

   As part of updating Medicare for the 21st century, we have to ensure that our elderly have access to lifesaving prescription drugs. Three out of five Medicare beneficiaries make do without dependable prescription drug coverage. We on this side of the aisle believe that it is a priority to create a voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit that is accessible and affordable for all beneficiaries.

   Which is putting first things first: helping provide needed medications for our elderly or cutting estate taxes for the very wealthy?

   We on this side of the aisle believe that one of our Nation's most pressing unmet needs is the acute and growing demand for help with long-term care. I have worked on this issue more than any other issue in my 18 years in public office. Our Nation's population is aging: Today, 4 million Americans are over 85 years old. By 2030, more than twice as many--9 million Americans--will be. Already today, 54 million Americans--one in five--live with some kind of disability. One in ten copes with a severe disability. In four out of five cases, a family member serves as that disabled person's primary helper, and, believe me, serves under a heavy burden in doing so. If the majority allows us to offer amendments, I will join with others on this side of the aisle in an amendment that will take some of the money that the majority would use to cut taxes for the superwealthy and use it to help make tax benefits available to these hard-working and financially strapped helpers.

   Again, which is putting first things first: helping people to provide long-term care for elderly and disabled family members or cutting estate taxes for the very wealthy?

   It seems that more and more these days, we see legislation like that before us today that benefits the very wealthy. At the same time, Senators feel increasing pressure to raise larger and larger sums of money from wealthy contributors. Observers could be forgiven for linking the two phenomena. Observers could reasonably wonder whether the contact Senators increasingly have with wealthy contributors could perhaps lead Senators increasingly to continually believe that the problems of the very wealthy are the problems to which we must respond first.

   The problem has only become worse with the large amounts of soft money being raised to get around the campaign finance laws. As the Supreme Court concluded in its decision this January in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: ``[T]here is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters.''

   A number of us believe that it continues to be a matter of great urgency to stop this corrupting influence of soft money in our elections. We feel that in order to get our priorities right, we need to get our house in order. Although it was undeniably a good thing to reform disclosure of contributions by organizations that do business under section 527 of the tax code, as we just did, that is by no means enough. Those of us fighting for campaign finance reform will forego no opportunity to offer an amendment to ban corrupting soft money once and for all.

   On that point, as we all know, only the tiniest fraction of the American people will be affected by this tax legislation before us today. But the American people also understand that those wealthy enough to be subject to estate taxes tend to have great political power.

   Those wealthy interests are able to make unlimited political contributions, and they are represented in Washington by influential lobbyists that have pushed hard to get this bill to the floor.

   The estate tax is one of those issues where political money seems to have an impact on the legislative outcome. That is why I want to quickly Call the Bankroll on some of the interests behind this bill, to give my colleagues and the public a sense of the huge amount of money at stake here. I talked about taxes, but now I am talking about political contributions.

   Take for instance the National Federation of Independent Business. Repeal of the inheritance tax is one of the federation's top priorities, and the federation is considered one of the most powerful organizations in town.

   They have the might of PAC and soft money contributions behind them.

   NFIB's PAC has given more than $441,000 in PAC money through June 1 of this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is on top of the incredible $1.2 million in PAC contributions NFIB doled out during the 1997-1998 election cycle.

   NFIB has also given soft money during the first 18 months of the current election cycle--just over $30,000 so far.

   Then there is the Food Marketing Institute, which represents supermarkets, and has also made a powerful push to bring this bill to the floor.

   Behind that push was the weight of significant PAC and soft money contributions, which I am sure is not a surprise to anybody.

   Through June 1st of this election cycle, the Food Marketing Institute has given more than $241,000 in PAC donations to candidates, after it made more than a half million in PAC donations during the previous cycle.

   FMI is also an active soft money donor, with more than $156,000 in soft money to the parties since the beginning of this cycle through June 1st of this year.

   On top of these wealthy associations, there are countless wealthy individuals who want to see the estate tax repealed. They are that tiny fraction of Americans who would benefit by the difference between the Republican approach and the more modest and appropriate Democratic approach.

   These folks want an end to the estate tax , and they are also able to give unlimited soft money to the political parties to get their point across.

   Then there is the most interesting player in the push to repeal the estate tax --the mystery donors.

   That is right, we don't know who is funding one of the major efforts to end the so-called death tax .

   We don't know because the group paying for it is one of those secretive 527 groups.

   The group is called The Committee for New American Leadership, and was founded, I am told, by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The committee, identified in news reports as a 527 ``stealth PAC,'' has been very busy pushing for the repeal of the estate tax , but nobody knows who is footing the bill for those efforts.

   As I stand here today, these mystery donors are having a lot to say about what gets debated in the Senate, and we have no way of really knowing who they are, or how much they gave. But thankfully, all of that may be changing.

   Thanks to the passage of the 527 disclosure bill, which the President almost immediately signed into law, from here on in we will know a lot more about who is writing the check to the Committee for New American Leadership, and the donors to every other stealth PAC that hid behind a tax loophole to evade public scrutiny.

   So, reformers won a victory with passage of the 527 disclosure bill, and we are just getting started. We are going to keep pushing until we address the other gaping loopholes in the campaign finance law that allow wealthy interests spend unlimited amounts of money to push for bills like this one, which serve the interests of the wealthy few at the expense of most Americans.

   Mr. President, again, to return to the central question, I ask: Which is putting first things first: ensuring honest elections, or cutting estate taxes for the very wealthy?

[Page: S6434]  GPO's PDF

   The majority shows by proceeding to this bill that it wants to help out those who have benefitted most in the latest economic boom. But the week before last, the business group the Conference Board released a report that said:

   Working full-time and year-round is, for more and more Americans, not enough.

   The report, called ``Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats?'' finds that Americans holding full-time jobs in the 1990s were just as likely to fall into poverty as Americans working full-time in the 1980s, and more likely to fall into poverty than full-time workers were in the 1970s. As The Wall Street Journal reported, economists attribute the problem in part to the erosion of the value of the minimum wage, which was in today's dollars worth about $7 in 1969, compared with the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.

   We on this side of the aisle believe that it is a priority to enact an increase in the income of working Americans making the minimum wage. The majority appears to believe that a tax cut for the very wealthy should be addressed first.

   So which is putting first things first: enacting a raise for working people making the minimum wage, or cutting estate taxes for the very wealthy?

   Even if we chose to confine ourselves strictly to cut taxes, should our highest priority for tax cuts be the very wealthiest 2 percent of the population? The majority shows by proceeding to this bill that it favors tax cuts for the super-wealthy before tax cuts for anyone else.

   We on this side of the aisle believe that it is a priority to cut taxes for working families struggling to stay out of poverty--families who have some of the highest marginal tax rates in our tax system. The majority's bill would give tax cuts to fewer than 43,000 upper-income taxpayers a year. In contrast, the President's proposal to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to reward work and family would provide tax relief for 7 million working families, providing up to $1,155 in additional tax relief a family.

   Among other things, the President's EITC proposal would increase benefits for working families with three or more children. The poverty rate for children in these larger families remains a stunning 29 percent, more than double the poverty rate among children in smaller families. A decade ago, a bipartisan group of Wisconsin State legislators enacted a substantially larger State EITC for families with three or more children, and it has helped to lift thousands of Wisconsin families from poverty.

   Which is putting first things first: helping the kids in 7 million working families keep out of poverty, or cutting estate taxes for the children who stand to inherit from the very wealthy?

   This Senator believes that it is a priority to simplify taxes and free people from paying income taxes altogether. One way to do this would be to expand the standard deduction. That would reduce tax liability for millions of working Americans. If the majority ever gives us a chance to offer amendments, I intend to offer such an amendment on tax legislation this year. Right now, 7 in 10 taxpayers take the standard deduction instead of itemizing. Expanding the standard deduction would make it worthwhile for even more Americans to use that easier method and avoid the difficult and cumbersome itemization forms. As well, expanding the standard deduction would free millions of middle-income working Americans from having any income tax liability at all.

   So again, which is putting first things first: freeing millions of middle-income Americans from the income tax , or cutting estate taxes for the very wealthy?

   Simplifying taxes generally should be a priority. Some have proposed that modest investors in mutual funds should be exempted from filling out the complicated capital gains schedule. Some have suggested streamlining the complicated child credit. Some have proposed further simplifying the Nanny Tax by raising the threshold for filing. These modest steps would relieve millions of middle-income taxpayers from needlessly complex and time-consuming tax forms, but they would also cost money.

   So which is putting first things first: simplifying income taxes for millions of middle-income taxpayers, or, again, cutting estate taxes for a few hundred of the very wealthy?

   Senators on both sides of the aisle believe that we should repeal the telephone tax for residential users. Pretty much everyone pays the telephone tax . Mr. President, 94 percent of American households have telephone service. And remember, fewer than 2 percent, even under current law, pay the estate tax . If the majority allows us to offer amendments, I will join with others on this side of the aisle in an amendment that will take some of the money that the majority would use to cut taxes for the super-wealthy and use it to repeal the telephone tax for residential users.

   Now, the majority also wants to eliminate the telephone tax for businesses, which is just a tax cut for people who own stock in those businesses--not the most progressive of tax cuts--but cutting taxes on residential telephone users is among the more progressive tax cuts that one could imagine this Congress passing. But the schedule betrays the majority's priorities.

   Which is putting first things first: repealing a residential telephone tax that nearly everyone pays, or repealing estate taxes that only very wealthiest 2 percent pay?

   Senators on both sides of the aisle believe that it is a priority to help working American families to save. The President's proposal last year to encourage retirement savings through what he called USA Accounts made some sense. Similarly, this year, Vice President GORE's new Retirement Savings Plus accounts--voluntary, tax -free personal savings accounts separate from Social Security but with a Government match--are also a pretty good idea. Both USA Accounts and Retirement Savings Plus would help millions of middle-income Americans to save and build resources for retirement.

   So again, when you look at that issue, which is putting first thing first: helping working American families to save, or cutting estate taxes for the very wealthy?

   As I said at the outset, this is really a welcome debate. Because the majority's desire to increase tax breaks for the very wealthy paints so stark a contrast to the many ways by which Senators on this side of the aisle really do want to help working Americans.

   This is not an example of class warfare. To point out what is going on, that is not what this is at all. In fact, what is class warfare is to maintain taxes on the vast majority of working Americans while cutting taxes only for the very wealthy Americans.

   I have taken some time on this occasion to contrast the majority's priorities with those of the American people because the majority leader has made all too clear that he does not intend to allow a fair and full debate of this estate tax bill. I have made this case on the motion to proceed rather than waiting for the bill itself because, if the majority leader follows what has become his regular practice, he will, in all likelihood, file cloture on the bill as soon as we get to it.

   Mr. President, I have said this before at much greater length, but I will say it again--others have said it better--this is not how the Senate was meant to work. This is the place where the Government was intended to consider policies fully and fairly.

   The majority leader's all-too-rapid resort to cloture deprives Senators from debating priorities such as those I have discussed today, and so many more. That is why I have taken time during this debate on the motion to proceed, which is not where we normally have this sort of debate, to warn, before the majority leader files his cloture motion, against the dangers of invoking cloture on the estate tax bill.

   This is a major bill. If enacted, it would take more than half a trillion dollars, maybe three-quarters of a trillion dollars a decade that would otherwise have gone to paying down the debt and put it in the hands of the very few wealthiest members of society. It would be neither fitting nor appropriate to effect the transfer of more than half a trillion dollars without a full and fair debate.

   And that is why we must debate this motion fully today. For if there is a remedy for the majority leader's abuse of the cloture process, it is a more rigorous use of the cloture process when it is abused.

   New York's Governor Al Smith said in 1933, ``All the ills of democracy can

[Page: S6435]  GPO's PDF

   Thus, if the majority lseader wants all the benefits of the cloture rule, then he will have to bear all the costs of the cloture rule, as well. If the majority leader lays down a cloture motion, he should be prepared to have the full 30 hours of debate on the matter on which the Senate invokes cloture. If the Senate invokes cloture, it should expect to have to remain on the matter on which has invoked cloture.

   Let's cut to the chase. The majority is moving to this complete repeal of the estate tax at least in part as a purely political gesture. The Administration has stated in so many words that the President would veto this bill. The majority apparently wants the veto and the issue more than it wants a good law that would eliminate estate taxes for the overwhelming majority of those who pay it.

   Such a compromise is available if the majority is willing to take it. The majority need only adopt Senator CONRAD's and Senator MOYNIHAN's substitute, and we can have meaningful estate tax reform this year.

   But if the majority does not do so, then we will debate this bill at length and vote on a series of amendments.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents