Legislative Agenda

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA -- (Senate - August 01, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FRIST. I am happy to.

Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the majority leader, since he called for the complete repeal of the estate tax, when President Bush took office, our national debt was about $5 trillion; now it is nearing $9 trillion. In 6 years it has gone from $5 trillion to $9 trillion. What you have proposed in the Senate will add at least $1 trillion more to the national debt.

Is there any limit to the amount of debt you would leave to future generations to give tax breaks to wealthy people?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think the misrepresentation of the issue we are going to be voting on, on Friday, that has just been made by the assistant Democratic leader needs to be addressed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. REID. I would be happy to.

Mr. DURBIN. I asked the majority leader a question. I said: Since we are adding to the debt which we are leaving to our children and families, is there any limit to the amount of debt you would create in America to provide tax breaks for people who are the wealthiest? And he would not reply to that, which suggests to me--I would ask the Senator from Nevada--that when the majority leader and the majority whip both said they really favor repeal of the estate tax--repeal, complete repeal of the estate tax--that they are prepared to incur whatever debt is necessary and leave that to future generations in order to benefit the wealthy few in America.

We have reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that the number of people to be benefited in 1 year in America from this estate tax reform is 8,200 people.

The average benefit by estate tax reform, as they call it, would be $1.4 million for each one of those persons.

I say to the Senator from Nevada, if the majority party in the Senate is not even sensitive to the fact that they are now leaving three-quarters of a trillion dollars of debt for our children and future generations to benefit 8,200 families, is this pay as you go? And if it is pay as you go, how are the Republicans paying for their reform or repeal of the estate tax?

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, like they pay for everything else. My 16 grandchildren are going to be paying for it, and their children are going to be paying for it. You talk about a death tax; the estate tax is not a death tax. What this Republican-dominated Washington has done in the last 6 years has passed on a birth tax to my children, their children, my grandchildren, and their children.

It is obvious what the priorities of this Republican Senate and the Republican House are: to take care of the fat cats, the rich people. That is what it is all about. They know this minimum wage legislation they sent us is flawed. It eliminates an increase for the hard-working poorest of the poor in seven States, and it is spread out over 3 years.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada, over what period of time have the Democrats in Congress been asking for an increase in the minimum wage and over what period of time have Republican Presidents and the Republican-led Congress said no repeatedly to an increase in the basic $5.15 minimum wage? How long have we been asking for a straight-up vote on increasing the minimum wage?

Mr. REID. It has been about 10 years. As I said here yesterday, I don't know why, even though it is a flawed measure they sent us, I don't know why they have moved forward. Maybe it is because we stood up and said there will be no congressional pay raise until the minimum wage is increased or maybe it is because Oprah did a show on this last week or maybe it is a combination of both.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada, when the Democrats said there will be no congressional pay raise until the minimum wage goes up, and all of a sudden the interest in the minimum wage was rekindled on the Republican side of the aisle, now that the Republicans have said we ought to spread the increase in the minimum wage over 3 years, perhaps the congressional pay raises should be spread over a 3-year period of time. There should be some symmetry if there is an insensitivity to what the lowest paid workers are receiving. I ask the Senator from Nevada if that is a proposal we ought to consider.

Mr. REID. Of course, we should consider it.

I say through the Chair to my friend from Illinois, we are in this predicament because the Republicans have put us here. We are spending an inordinate amount of time on seeing if they can run up a debt of approximately $1 trillion to the American people to take care of 8,100 people. That is why we are here. It is not because of the minimum wage; they hate the minimum wage. You know that, I know that. It is not because of the extenders. The extenders are good for most everybody. That is why they put it on the pension bill in conference. We are here because of the estate tax repeal. That is what this is all about. All the rest is fluff. As I say, the dominating issue of this Republican Senate has been estate tax repeal. That means more to them than spending time debating the war in Iraq. It means more to them than talking about health care.

It means more to them, certainly, than talking about global warming because, according to them, it doesn't exist. It certainly has taken away time to talk about why the President vetoed stem cell. This issue relating to the estate tax has taken care of everything for them. That is their No. 1 issue. You talk about the minimum wage being our No. 1 issue. They don't have No. 2, 3, 4, 5, like we do. Estate tax is it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/