Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2006

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the cynical efforts to tie a much needed boost in the minimum wage to a massive tax cut for the heirs of the wealthiest Americans.

The economic disparities between minimum wage workers and wealthy people whose large estates are subject to the estate tax are so vast that pairing these two measures together defies logic. I am also hard pressed to find a link between either of these issues and the extension of several expiring tax provisions that have been tacked on as well.

No matter how my colleagues in the majority try to dress it up, this is really just another vote on the estate tax. It was less than two months ago that full repeal of the estate tax failed to pass in the Senate. Instead of addressing the pressing problems ordinary Americans face on a range of economic issues, the leadership is back again trying to pass near-elimination of the estate tax.

The estate tax is an important component of our progressive federal tax system, it is the Federal Government's only tax on wealth, and by 2009 less than one-half of one percent of all estates will be subject to the tax. Far from being a ``death tax,'' the tax falls on heirs who seldom had any real role in earning the wealth built up by the estate holder. The decedent's estate pays a portion of the total assets to the Federal Government and the remainder is then passed on to heirs. Capital gains that have built up in the estate tax free are passed on to the heirs on a ``stepped up'' basis, and the heirs are not liable for any income tax on these gains. No tax is levied if the estate passes to a spouse or is donated to charity. The overwhelming majority of estates pay no federal estate tax.

As a matter of fact, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only about 8,200 estates would owe any estate tax in 2011 if the 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million were made permanent. Those are the people who would benefit from further cuts in the estate tax and their estimated average tax savings is about $1.3 million--a far cry from the $2.10 hourly wage increase that the Majority has put on the table for minimum wage workers.

A minimum wage hike is long overdue. The Federal minimum wage, which today stands at $5.15 per hour, hasn't been raised since 1997. Since then, inflation has not only wiped out that pay increase but brought the real value of the minimum wage to its lowest level in half a century. Over the past 9 years, the minimum wage has lost one-fifth of its purchasing power.

The majority's plan would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour by the middle of 2009. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 5.9 million workers would benefit directly from the increase and that the average benefit would be $1,200 per year. Another 7.1 million workers earning somewhat more than $7.25 per hour could benefit indirectly as a ``spillover benefit'' of the minimum wage increase. However, 1.8 million fewer workers would benefit under the Republican proposal because it phases in the increase over a 3-year period rather than the 2-year phase-in under Senator Kennedy's proposal.

Senator Kennedy's minimum wage legislation, which I have cosponsored, also does not contain any poison pills, such as the near-elimination of the estate tax or the egregious roll back of State pay protections for minimum wage workers. Currently, there are seven States that have chosen not to include a tip penalty in their minimum wage laws. Thus, tipped employees in these States earn the full State minimum wage. Under the Republican bill, however, one million tipped employees in these seven States will see a drastic cut in their base pay.

Raising the minimum wage is vital because workers have been left out of the economic growth we have seen so far in this recovery. Strong productivity growth has translated into higher profits for businesses, not more take home pay for workers. The stagnation of earnings in the face of soaring prices for gasoline, home heating, food, health care and college tuition is squeezing workers' paychecks. Just this week, the administration admitted as much. At a speech at Columbia Business School, Treasury Secretary Paulson stated that ``amid this country's strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. Many aren't seeing significant

increases in their take home pay. Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health costs.''

No one who works full time should have to live in poverty, but the current minimum wage isn't enough to bring even a single parent with one child over the poverty line--even if the parent works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Five million more Americans have fallen into poverty since President Bush took office--37 million Americans are now living in poverty, including 13 million children.

The minimum wage is an important policy tool to lift low-income families out of poverty. Almost two-thirds of those who would benefit are adult workers, and more than a third of these adults are sole breadwinners for their families. This is not pocket change for teenagers, as opponents of the wage floor have argued.

The devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last September put the national spotlight on the problem of poverty in America. As Senator Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, put it last year, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about eliminating the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.''

While the minimum wage has steadily lost purchasing power over the past 9 years, Federal Reserve data show that over roughly the same period the inflation-adjusted average net worth of the 10 percent families with the greatest wealth increased by almost 40 percent. The wealth of those most likely to have estate tax liability has increased substantially, but the taxes owed on an estate of any given size are lower now than they were in 1997 because of increases in the exclusion and reductions in the tax rate.

The differences in economic circumstances between those at the very top of the income or wealth distribution and those at the bottom are vast and widening. Again, during his address in New York, Treasury Secretary Paulson stressed that ``addressing issues of wage growth and uneven income distribution is a longer-term challenge that we can address.'' And yet, again the rhetoric of this administration does not match its actions. The consideration of this bill before us today is proof that the majority and the administration are not serious about addressing disparities.

Looking at earnings, minimum wage workers make about $206 for a 40- hour week at the current rate of $5.15 per hour. That would put them in the bottom 10 percent of the distribution of usual weekly earnings of full-time workers and these workers have suffered the largest declines over the past 5 years. Those at the upper-income levels are seeing earnings gains but for those at the bottom- and middle-income levels, there is a loss in real earnings since the President took office whereas in the 1990s, when you saw the proverbial picket fence--there were positive gains at every percentile.

Turning to household wealth, an overwhelming majority of households have very little in the way of accumulated wealth and assets and would not be subject to the estate tax. Households in the bottom fifth of the wealth distribution have a median wealth of just $2,000. In contrast, households in the top 10 percent have a median wealth of $1.4 million, which is less than the current estate tax exclusion of $2 million for an individual or $4 million for a married couple. Because half of the households in that wealthiest group have less than the median net worth of the group, most will not owe any estate tax.

The inequity of this proposal is compelling enough, but the budgetary consequences of nearly eliminating the estate tax make it completely unpalatable.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that this estate tax proposal would cost about $600 billion over the 2012-2021 period, or about $750 billion when the associated debt service costs are included. That is about three-quarters of the cost of full repeal, but probably understates the true cost because the latest proposal is not fully effective until 2015.

We are financing near-repeal of the estate tax with debt, because the costs will be paid for with borrowed money. Future generations of taxpayers--minimum wage workers and others who will make significantly less than the heirs of deceased multimillionaires and billionaires-- will have to repay those funds. The drain on the budget would occur at the very time that the baby boom generation enters retirement and rising Social Security and Medicare costs would strain our budget. Secretary Paulson rightfully identified ``reforming entitlement programs, advancing energy security and maintaining and strengthening trade and investment policies that benefit American workers'' as ``longer-term challenges that will face our economy in the years to come.'' However, as we all know these are challenges that we can only meet if we have the resources to do so. Making permanent fiscally irresponsible tax cuts only endanger our abilities to truly address what should be our national priorities.

Raising the minimum wage will increase the likelihood that minimum- wage workers will be paying taxes and drawing on fewer government services. In contrast, virtually eliminating the estate tax will reduce Federal revenues, increase the budget deficit, and put pressure on other government programs that contribute to the economic well-being of lower-income workers, including minimum wage workers.

Today, we are at war and yet there is no sense of the shared sacrifice that has united this country in past conflicts. Ironically, the estate tax was first adopted in the nineteenth century to pay for government shortfalls due to wartime spending. Our military families are making tremendous sacrifices, and too many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. With $320 billion appropriated or pending for Iraq operations to date and more than 2,500 service men and women killed, the human and financial tolls are both more staggering than imagined.

With mounting war costs, the impending retirement of the baby-boom generation and deficits as far as the eye can see, due to the President's irresponsible tax cuts, it is unconscionable to think that we are going to vote again on gutting one of the most progressive taxes on the books.

Putting a minimum wage hike that is so necessary for working families to make ends meet together with an estate tax bill that benefits a few wealthy heirs reveals a warped set of priorities. The same can be said for holding hostage a package of tax extenders that all support. Our focus should be on strengthening the safety net for American families-- whether it's raising the minimum wage or preserving Social Security, pensions, and health insurance coverage.

I have been a consistent supporter of the minimum wage, but this is a cruel juxtaposition of policies which I can not support.

Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion in terms of what the plans would be. We will be proceeding where we can finish the bills, not the Department of Defense appropriations bill tonight, but in all likelihood the other bills. I will propound the unanimous consent request, and then we will lay out the evening.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to H.R. 5970, the Family Prosperity Act, occur following 15 minutes for Senator Grassley, 15 minutes for the Democratic manager, and 15 minutes for each leader; provided further that if cloture is not invoked, the Senate then proceed immediately to the consideration of H.R. 4, the pensions bill, and that there be 20 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders, with no amendments in order to the bill; further, that following the use or yielding back of debate, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, with no intervening action or debate; further, that it not be in order to consider any conference report on H.R. 2830 during this Congress.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have made it clear since the outset that our intention was to address the Family Prosperity Act, which are the three bills, which people have been referring to as the ``trifecta,'' unamended and without any attempt to either separate that and add it to the pensions bill. We will proceed as planned, consistent with the unanimous consent request that I outlined.

I do object.

Mr. President, I will yield to Senator Grassley when he comes. I think that I will go ahead and yield myself time on this bill. We have essentially 30 minutes on either side, of which 15 or 20 minutes of our time will be used by Senator Grassley.

We will be voting shortly on what we are calling the Family Prosperity Act. Heretofore, it has been called the trifecta bill because it addresses three different issues that are critically important to the American people.

Each of these three bills that have been grouped together to become the Family Prosperity Act are important to hard-working Americans, millions of them. One of the three bills is the permanent tax relief bill. Let me say at the outset that this is a compromise bill that has been put together. We attempted earlier to do something that I strongly believe in, which is totally repealing this unfair and wrongful ``death'' tax. We were unable to do that on the floor of the Senate, and after a lot of discussion between Republicans and Democrats, with the leadership, with Senator Kyl on our side and many Democrats, a bill that is a compromise was put together and is very similar to the bill that is in the Family Prosperity Act.

Why is it important? Because this death tax punishes everyday Americans by forcing them to give up their businesses, give up their farms, which their loved ones--dads, moms, and grandparents--have worked hard to pass on to them. It has a direct impact on farming, ranching, construction. All of these bills are labor and capital intensive, but the cost of passing these enterprises on to future generations in one piece is often prohibitive and impossible to do.

About 90 percent of family businesses don't survive that third generation. Even those who do manage to pass on their family businesses are adversely affected. Instead of spending money to innovate and grow the business, people have to pay money either to the Federal Government, to accountants and business people to, in some way, try to lessen the burden they would some day have to pay.

There are a lot of issues that we have addressed in this body. It is time that we act on this one. Again, it is a compromise that we pulled together.

The second aspect of the Family Prosperity Act are some very important tax extenders. There is a list of those that I am sure others will talk about, and one that is of particular interest to me is the sales tax deductibility. In my State of Tennessee, from 1986 to 2004, hard-working Tennesseans were placed at a disadvantage simply because Tennessee was one of seven States that chose to raise revenue primarily through a sales tax instead of an income tax. Thankfully, in 2004, this body, working with President Bush, restored fairness to that Federal tax policy, but that provision expired last year, and more than 64,000 Tennessee families will suffer if that tax relief is not extended. That is just one provision. There are many others.

The research and development tax credit, we know, is absolutely critical to our small businesses, mid-size businesses, and larger businesses in order to grow and to do that research and innovation that prepares them for the future and that creates jobs for the future.

The final piece of the Family Prosperity Act increases the minimum wage. Specifically, it increases it by 40 percent; thus, if we were to pass this bill tonight, the Family Prosperity Act, in the very near term, because it already passed the House, minimum wage workers-- several million people--will have a 40 percent increase that will begin in the very near future. Young workers entering the job market for the first time would have a minimum wage hike that would be welcome.

I see that my colleague, Senator Grassley, is here. At this point, I will be happy to yield to him. He has a statement of 15 to 20 minutes. I yield to him what time is required for his statement.

Yes.

Mr. President, has time been used on our side?

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute using leader time to my distinguished colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. President, in closing, I will be very brief.

In a few moments, we will be voting on the motion to proceed to this very important bill called the Family Prosperity Act. It is called that very specifically for the reasons we have outlined.

There are three very important components: The extension of tax relief--we spoke about it on the floor, key provisions such as the State and local tax deduction affecting the many States, in my State alone, 670,000 Tennessee families; college tuition deduction affecting millions of families; research and development tax credit which stimulates growth, innovation, creativity, and jobs; teachers' classroom expenses deduction, affecting 55,000 teachers.

Secondly, the permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is not only a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55 percent and dropping to $1 million in 2011, it is a $5 million exemption per spouse indexed for inflation, and a 15-percent tax rate from $5 million to $25 million.

Thirdly, a minimum wage increase, 40 percent over the next 3 years-- 40 percent.

In summary, an ``aye'' vote is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. An ``aye'' vote is for that extension of tax relief. And an ``aye'' vote is for that 40 percent minimum wage increase.

We have a lot of challenges before us. We have addressed many others in the last 4 weeks. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American out their working, their family, that farmer, that small business owner.

I encourage my colleagues to vote aye.

I ask unanimous notwithstanding rule XXII that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Mr. President, I now enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

Mr. President, the real vote would have been 57 to 41. I switched my vote from ``aye'' to ``no,'' thus the reported vote is 56 to 42.

I want to clarify, very briefly, where we are now. For purely procedural reasons, as leader, I switched my vote to a ``no'' vote to preserve all of my procedural options. As everyone knows, I strongly support cloture and moving to proceed to the three important issues in the Family Prosperity Act. I initially voted ``yes'' on cloture, but by switching to a ``no'' vote, I preserve my right, as leader, to revisit this issue in the future as a package.

The Senate just had a majority vote to move forward to this bill which reforms the onerous death tax, raises the minimum wage for millions of Americans, and provides a number of important tax relief extenders that will expire. Had the Senate invoked cloture, I am confident we could have finished this measure this weekend and presented it to the President in the next couple of days to become the law of the land.

With my switched vote, I preserve the procedural option to bring the bill back as a package. I hope the Democratic Senators will rethink long and hard over the weeks to come before we return for business in September.

Mr. President, finally, just for the record, a number of comments were made just prior to the vote about the tip wage issue. As my colleagues know, I have made it clear to them that is an issue that we would be able to address once on the bill. But we have now been prevented from getting on the bill.

I am confounded. There is no other way to put it.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to this floor, time and again, raving about a ``do nothing'' Congress.

Well, today, just a few minutes ago, we had yet another opportunity to do something--as we have already many times this Congress.

We had the chance to bring three very important issues to the floor for debate: permanent death tax relief, extension of expiring tax provisions, and a minimum wage Increase.

These are issues that matter in the day-to-day lives of our constituents--issues that actually mean something to hard-working Americans.

And yet some of my colleagues decided these issues aren't important enough to debate here on the Senate floor.

This package--it's about securing America's prosperity.

It's about easing the tax burden facing America's families.

It's about helping hard-working Americans tackle an increasing cost of living head on.

And it's about fostering innovation and reinvestment in our homegrown small businesses and farms.

Quite simply, it's vital to the economic security of everyday Americans.

These are challenging issues, and they must be addressed here on the Senate floor.

And as I have said before, these issues must be addressed as a package: permanent death tax relief, tax policy extensions, and a 40- percent increase in the minimum wage.

All three together. All or nothing.

Not bringing this package--the Family Prosperity Act--to the floor is tantamount to saying, ``We don't care about America's economic security.''

And I am deeply ashamed that we, the U.S. Senate, would ever dare send such a message to the American people.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce two energy bills: the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006; and the Enhanced Energy Security Tax Incentives Act of 2006.

All of us know that we face a challenging energy situation in this country in both the short term and the long term. The world market price of crude oil is above $72 per barrel. We have seen gasoline prices above $3 per gallon in many parts of the country. In my home State of New Mexico, these prices are a real hardship to the many New Mexicans who are forced to drive long-distances to work, without the prospect of car pooling or public transportation. The steep rise in the price of gas at the pump is putting a nearly unbearable squeeze on family budgets in New Mexico and all across America.

So, we have a major national problem and not much time left in this Congress to make progress on it. The question is, what can we do in the remaining weeks of this Congress that would be bipartisan, that could be signed into law by the President, and that would hold out the prospect of eventually helping to moderate the price of gasoline at the pump?

I have thought for some time that the most effective way of approaching the real issues driving the high prices that consumers find unacceptable is through a four-part strategy focusing on 1. increasing consumer protection, 2. increasing supply, 3. increasing efficiency of oil and gas use, and 4. providing incentives for forward-looking energy choices in the market.

A fair number of bills have already been introduced that deal with the first two parts of that strategy. What has been lacking is a bipartisan path forward to consensus on increasing energy efficiency and on stimulating forward-looking investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

Today's bills are intended to fill that gap. Each of these two bills is designed to go to a single committee with jurisdiction over most, if not all, of its contents.

The first bill, the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, is comprised of provisions that generally fall in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The second bill, the Enhanced Energy Security Tax Incentives Act of 2006, is comprised solely of provisions in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

Some of the provisions in these two bills have been drawn from other bills, including S. 2025, the Vehicles and Fuels Choices for American Security Act, which was introduced last year by Senators Bayh, Coleman, Lieberman and Brownback along with others. I appreciate their leadership and their support for this effort. What is newsworthy here today is that we are putting a large body of good policy ideas in a form that will facilitate committee action here in the Senate.

Relying on the Energy and the Finance committees to do the necessary homework to come up with bipartisan solutions to our energy challenges is the best way for us to make progress in this Congress. Both committees have leaders, in Senators Domenici and Senator Grassley, who demonstrated their commitment to bipartisan engagement on energy issues during the enactment of last year's Energy Policy Act of 2005. I am looking forward to working with both Committee Chairs to move forward with the ideas in these bills on a bipartisan basis.

The basic idea behind the first bill, which is coming to the Energy Committee, is that if we want, in the long term, to moderate the prices that consumers are seeing in today's markets from oil and natural gas, we need to focus more strongly on increasing energy efficiency, and particularly increased efficiency of our use of oil and natural gas.

That's an area where we were unable to do much in the last Energy bill. But, there is a lot that needs to be done.

Among the most important provisions we are taking from S. 2025 and putting in the new bill, is an emphasis on an expanded plan for economy-wide oil savings. The President is to come up with a plan that will cut our oil use, from projected levels, by 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2016, 7 million barrels of oil per day by 2026, and 10 million barrels of oil per day by 2031.

The new bill, also like S. 2025, includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce our nearly total reliance on petroleum products in the transportation sector. These include: programs that will speed the development of new vehicle technologies such as ``plug-in hybrids'' and the use of advanced light weight materials in vehicles; expanding the authority of the Secretary of Energy to provide loan guarantees and competitive grants to auto manufacturers and parts manufacturers for converting existing facilities or building new facilities for manufacturing fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicle components; increasing the availability of alternative fuels, such as E85, across the country by providing funding for alternative fuel fueling stations; and providing incentives for the production of cellulosic ethanol-- including loan guarantees and a reverse auction for production payments.

The new bill will also include a number of provisions aimed at relieving demand and price pressure on natural gas. These include: strengthening the Federal purchase requirement for renewable energy; the 10 percent renewable portfolio standard that has passed the full Senate 3 times in the past 4 years; encouraging States to strengthen their programs on demand-side management; and better educating consumers about energy efficiency measures that they can take.

The basic idea behind the second bill, the Enhanced Energy Security Tax Incentives Act of 2006, is to create fiscal incentives that help forward-looking energy technologies to enter the market. As is often the case with technological advancements, many of the energy technology alternatives that are poised to enter the marketplace will not be able to successfully compete without some transitional help.

The first set of provisions in the bill extends, through 2010, the various alternative fuel, efficiency and renewable energy tax provisions we passed last year. These existing tax incentives will work best if investors, manufacturers and consumers know that the government is committed and that they can plan for these tax incentives being there for a few years. The tax provisions we are extending include provisions to encourage the purchase of energy efficient housing and office materials, as well as the generation of electricity from alternative sources such

as biomass, fuel cells, the wind and the sun. It will be nearly impossible for Congress to create a comprehensive national energy policy if important energy tax incentives such as these are in a perpetual state of uncertainty over the long term. If we extend these tax incentives through 2010 now, we will see a great increase in their usefulness in an industry that needs a few years lead-time to plan and build major energy projects.

The second set of provisions in the new tax bill will create new incentives to encourage our country to move towards more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrids. It accomplishes this in several ways.

First, as the President has suggested, we lift the current cap on the number of vehicles per manufacturer that are eligible for a consumer tax credit. This proposal was also part of the package unveiled last week by Senators Domenici and Frist. Under the bill I will be introducing, this modified version of the tax credit will be also extended until 2010.

Next, we create a 35 percent tax credit for manufacturers on the expenses involved in retrofitting or setting up manufacturing facilities to make these fuel efficient vehicles.

To encourage businesses with fleets of vehicles, we create a 15 percent tax credit for the purchase of more than 10 fuel efficient vehicles in a year.

In order to encourage alternative fueling stations, we expand the current 30 percent tax credit to 50 percent and allow it to be operative until the end of 2010.

Finally, we create a 25 percent tax credit for the purchase of qualified idling reduction equipment so that vehicles currently on the road are not running their engines any more than necessary.

While this is a rather large expansion of the currently available tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles, it is what is going to be necessary to get our vehicle policy headed in the right direction.

The legislation also contains new provisions to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient technologies for residences and businesses. It creates a 10 percent tax credit for the purchase of energy efficient combined heat and power units as well as provides for three year depreciation on the purchase price for ``smart meters.'' These provisions have broad support in the Senate but were regrettably dropped in last year's conference on the Energy Bill. I think is important that we look at these provisions anew.

A question that usually arises when you talk about expanding tax incentives is whether they are going to be paid for. Many of us here in the Senate are worried about the deficit, so the tax bill that I am describing contains several revenue offsets, such as the provisions contained in last year's reconciliation tax bill that get rid of tax benefits in the oil and gas industry that are unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars. This legislation would also close the SUV tax loophole that provides a windfall for the purchasers of inefficient cars at a time when the nation needs to be discouraging this activity.

I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee on both these new tax incentives but also on ways of paying for them, so that we are acting in a way that is fiscally responsible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes on the minority time.

Mr. President, this legislation is known as the trifecta. What a perfect name. What a perfect name for this legislation. Do you know what a trifecta is? It is when you go to the racetrack and you pick the horses that win, place, and show in the proper order--first, second, and third. The reason that is the right name for this bill is that a trifecta is a high-stakes gamble. That is exactly what this bill is. It is a high-stakes gamble with America's future. A trifecta is also a bet where there are many more losers than there are winners. And that is exactly what this bill is. There will be many more losers in America, if this bill is enacted, than winners.

How about the winners when it comes to the estate tax? How many Americans are affected by the estate tax? If one listened to the other side of the aisle, one would think that every person who gets up in the morning and goes to work is going to pay the estate tax to the Federal Government. Guess what. When you take a look at the chart, look for that thin red line on this big blue circle. It represents 2 estates out of every 1,000 in America. Mr. President, .2 percent of the estates in America are wealthy enough to pay anything into the estate tax. So the obvious question is, If this estate tax, which they want to repeal, means so much to so few, how did we end up making this the flagship issue for the Republicans in this Congress, the most important single issue to them to the exclusion of every other issue, the issue that returns to us on the floor with such frequency? How did they reach this point?

The New York Times wrote an article on June 7, 2006, that explained it. Do my colleagues want to know how these issues become big-time issues in Washington? They wrote that over the last decade, 18 of the wealthiest families in the country have spent more than $200 million lobbying in the Halls of Congress to repeal the estate tax. It turns out that these 18 families will be huge winners if this repeal is passed. How many families will benefit if the estate tax is repealed? Each year in America, a Nation of 300 million people: 8,200 families. You have to search long and hard to find them. These are families who are so well off, who have done so well in this great Nation, who have benefited from this democracy and the blessings of liberty, who have enjoyed a comfortable life because of their prosperity, who now have taken millions of dollars to hire the most effective lobbyists in Washington, DC to push through this outrageous special interest legislation.

Trifecta: Many more losers than winners, but the winners are those 8,200 families. That is what this is all about.

Of course, they came up with a new name tonight. It is not just the trifecta. You have to hand it to whoever sits in the bowels of the Capitol and dreams up the names for the outrageous bills they bring to the floor. Senator Reid has reminded us so many times that they had the nerve to call a bill the ``Deficit Reduction Act'' which increased the deficit. They had the nerve to call a bill the ``Healthy Forest Act'' which cut down trees. They had the nerve to name a bill the ``Clean Skies Act'' which resulted in more air pollution. And they had the nerve to call a bill part of the ``ownership society'' which privatized Social Security.

Now comes ``family prosperity.'' Oh, you just want to pull up a chair by the fireplace, relax, look at the ceiling and think: Thank God prosperity has arrived. And what does this bill do? This bill piles on the national debt. This bill adds to the outrageous debt which we have seen accumulated under this President.

Take a look at this, my friends who call yourselves fiscally conservative. When this President was elected in 2001, our entire national debt was $5.8 trillion. In 6 years of the Bush-Cheney ownership society, family prosperity, we are now up to $8.5 trillion from $5.8 trillion. This President managed in such a short period of time to increase the national debt on America by 60 percent. And look: Follow his policies out to the year 2011, 10 years after President Bush was elected, follow them out and notice that the national debt in America virtually doubles. Boy, if that isn't family prosperity, I don't know where you would turn.

Where do we look to this bill? What does it do to add to family prosperity in America? Well, American families, look at this prosperity. This bill adds $753 billion to the national debt. Oh, I tell you, you just want to curl up by the fire and thank the Republicans for coming up with this bill to make us feel so prosperous. They are prosperous in terms of creating debt for America.

I asked Senator Frist on the floor just a day or two ago a very basic question: Is there any limit to the amount of debt you would create for future generations in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America? He couldn't answer the question.

I think the answer is obvious. Senator Frist has said repeatedly he wishes we could repeal the entire estate tax, which would drive us even further and further into debt. American family prosperity. We are safe in the bosom of the Grand Old Party when all they can dream up are new ways to create debt by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America.

But there is a spoonful of sugar with this bitter medicine. They are going to finally increase the minimum wage. It didn't take them long to come around to this position--only 9 years. It has been 9 years since we enacted a minimum wage of $5.15 an hour; 9 years while they resisted us for every single attempt we have made to increase the minimum wage for some of the lowest-paid, hardest-working people in America; 9 years of saying no to every single proposal to give single moms raising children enough money so they can put their kids safely in day care, so they can buy their medicine and food and have a decent home to live in; 9 years of saying no.

And what led to this death-bed conversion by the Republicans at this moment in time? Could it be the threat of the Democrats that there will be no congressional pay raise until the minimum wage is increased? That kind of gets your attention around the halls of Congress. Apparently it caught the attention of the Republicans.

Could it be the looming election where the Bush-Cheney economic policies are viewed so negatively across America, where people realize that average working families are falling farther and farther behind, that now the Republicans want to increase the minimum wage?

Well, it could be all of those things. But even in their effort to get well 100 days before the election, they blew it. They blew it. Because in seven States they wrote the minimum wage change in a way which will force a pay cut on thousands of hard-working people. The waiters and waitresses who depend on tips in seven States will get a pay cut with this so-called minimum wage increase.

It is an outrage, Mr. President. It is an outrage that we have reached this point in America where the party that used to pride itself on fiscal conservatism can add $753 billion to our national debt without flinching. They don't care to cut any spending or increase any other taxes; they are going to heap this debt on future generations. Boy, if that isn't a recipe for family prosperity, I can't imagine what would be. And then they turn around after 9 years of saying no every chance they have had to an increase in the minimum wage. Now they can go along with it. They can give 6.6 million Americans an increase in their basic minimum wage--as long as we promise that the fattest of cats in America will get a great big bowl of tax cuts, tax cuts on the estate tax. That is what it has come down to.

They have thrown other things in this bill like tax extenders, but we all know what they are about. These tax extenders are kicked around like a football every congressional session. You wait and decide which bill you put them on to try to entice people to vote for the bill because everyone agrees with them. Everyone understands that they are necessary for our economy. People of all political stripes support them.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

I would just like to say in closing, the American people know better. This is a high-stakes gamble with America's future. This trifecta is going to have many more American losers than winners. This is the worst special interest bill I have seen in my time in Congress.

This will not bring prosperity to America's families. This will bring deeper debt to our Nation at a time when we don't need it. This is the first President in the history of the United States to call for cutting taxes in the midst of a war, asking sacrifice from soldiers and their families and turning around to the wealthiest in America and saying: We are going to give you a tax cut. That is an outrage.

I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this trifecta. Don't buy a ticket on this race, because it is a loser.

I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, our country is at war. We face fundamental challenges to our security at home and abroad. The President himself has compared our situation to the Cold War, to World War II. Those were existential struggles, for which we made great sacrifices and which fundamentally realigned our priorities.

Thousands of American families have paid the ultimate sacrifice, tens of thousands of our sons and daughters have been wounded. Tens of thousands more have been put in the line of fire, some of them for multiple tours of duty.

The war in Iraq alone has lasted longer than World War II, and its cost, at $315 billion, continues to grow.

Here at home, we face challenges to the American dream--the faith that hard work would be rewarded with a decent job, a better future for our children, and secure retirement.

The income of the average American family has not risen in the past 6 years. Global competition from a billion and a half new workers will change the world our children inherit. American families have virtually no money left over to save, and private retirement savings are woefully inadequate to meet the wave of retirees now upon us.

To meet these challenges, we will have to make massive investments in education and in research to boost the productivity and earnings of American workers. We need to find alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on oil that undermines our foreign policy and holds our economy hostage.

Over 46 million Americans are without health insurance. Only 5 percent of the containers that pass through our ports are inspected for weapons. Our passenger rail system lacks the basic lighting, fences, dog patrols, and cameras that could prevent attacks by terrorists we know have that system in their sights. This is just a short list of the profound challenges we face as a Nation. We can all think of others.

While our needs multiply, we lack the resources to meet them. Handed a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, this administration has dragged us down, through the most dramatic reversal in our Nation's history, into an additional $3 trillion in debt.

They have doubled our debt to foreign governments. We now owe more than $2 trillion to Japan, China, and others. We are losing control of our financial future.

We are borrowing from our own national retirement savings, the Social Security system. This year alone, we will borrow $177 billion from Social Security.

Every day we go deeper into debt to foreign governments. Every day we spend more of our national retirement savings. And every day our basic needs, from homeland security to our retirement savings to our children's future--those needs are ignored.

That is the setting, that is the background, those are the circumstances in which we are now asked to cut taxes on just 7,000 of the wealthiest heirs in our country--at a cost of over $750 billion in the first decade it is in effect.

All of that will be borrowed. It is a transfer of $750 billion to the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans, borrowed from China, from Japan, from our own Social Security system. Somebody will have to pay that back.

Our children and our grandchildren will pay that back. It is a transfer from those with no voice of their own in our system, a transfer to those whose wealth speaks the loudest.

Under current law, the estate tax will affect fewer than 7,000 estates in the whole country by 2009. That year, a couple will be able to exempt a $7 million estate from taxes--a $7 million estate will pay no estate taxes. None.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only 65 family farms in the whole country will be subject to estate tax at that point, under current law. Sixty-five farms, period.

Seven thousand of the wealthiest families will be the only ones paying any estate tax, and only 65 of those estates will be family farms, barely more than 1 farm per State across Our Nation.

And yet we are here today, actually considering reducing those numbers further, and driving our debt deeper, to save the most fortunate among us from that small remainder of an estate tax.

I believe that with the changes in current law we have accomplished some appropriate reform. I believe that family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate made sense.

Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. Those are reforms that protect all but a few from the estate tax. It protects family businesses and family farms.

But I opposed complete repeal of the estate tax, and I oppose this legislation that will cost us $750B, three quarters of the cost of full repeal.

I oppose it, not because those who would benefit aren't good Americans. I am sure they are. Because they are good Americans, I think most would agree that given the world we live in today, facing a global threat to our security, with gaps in our homeland security, with clear domestic needs unmet, with our Federal finances already in the red--in the face of those facts, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford.

We could provide our middle class with some tax relief, by extending protection from the marriage penalty for $46 billion. We could extend the child tax credit for $183 billion. We could extend the college tuition deduction for $19 billion. Instead, the top priority of the leadership in this Congress is a handout to the most fortunate, paid for by three-quarters of a trillion dollars in debt heaped on our kids.

To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. Under current law, you can be paid a wage that keeps you below the poverty line even if you are working full time.

Over the past 24 years, the most fortunate Americans, in the top 1 percent, saw their incomes more than double--from an average of $306,000 to over $700,000. During that same period, the incomes of average Americans grew just 15 percent.

But the poorest fifth of our citizens saw their already inadequate incomes grow just $600--over 24 years.

We are moving apart, not coming together, as a nation.

The minimum wage has not increased since 1996--and all of that increase has been wiped out by the cost of living. The minimum wage today, at $5.15 an hour, is even worth less in today's dollars than the $4.25 rate it replaced.

Today, the minimum wage is worth only a third of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level in more than half a century. The bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity is broken. It is time to fix it.

That means a pay raise for over 7 million workers, in three stages, over the next 3 years, to $7.25 an hour. That will lift the floor under everybody's wages.

But now we are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go three-quarters of a trillion dollars into debt to China, Japan, and other countries so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax.

Everyone else's sons and daughters will get that bill. Our country, already the world's biggest debtor nation, already borrowing 65 percent of all the money borrowed by countries around the world, already spending the retirement savings that should be going into Social Security, our country will be weaker financially because of it.

The American people are tired of seeing this kind of ``gotcha'' politics while our country is at war, while we face serious challenges to our economic competitiveness, our health, our children's future. Instead of a long overdue adjustment in the minimum wage, we get political theater.

And finally, instead of extending important tax credits to promote research and development, to clean up brownfields--even to give our fighting forces tax credits for combat pay--we are given this take-it- or-leave-it deal that makes estate tax cuts the top priority.

Those are not the priorities of the American people, and this Senate should reject them.

We can pass a minimum wage increase to reward work at the bottom of our economic ladder. We can extend the tax breaks that meet real needs and that serve genuine public policy needs. We can do that, and we can leave in place substantial reforms to the estate tax that have already taken place.

First, we must say no to this transparent gimmick. Then we can do what we should have done in the first place.

Mr. President, this so-called trifecta bill is a bet by the Republican leadership that the American people will not notice their strategy to gut the estate tax in order to give the wealthiest one-half of 1 percent of our families a huge tax break. I hope they will lose that bet.

The Republicans have tried to sweeten their fiscally reckless proposal by extending popular tax cuts that have strong support and by adding an increase in the minimum wage that many of them do not even want and have opposed repeatedly for years. Republican leaders know that their estate tax proposal would not pass on its own, so they have added other provisions that many want in hopes of drawing enough votes to pass their true goal--more tax cuts for the superrich. Failing that, the Republican leaders seem willing to settle for having as a talking point that they tried to increase the minimum wage, even though they have opposed it year after year.

The American people will not be fooled. They know that many have fought tooth and nail to increase the minimum wage, and that we will keep fighting. But we won't be blackmailed into supporting irresponsible tax cuts by a political gambit.

This estate tax proposal is unfair and unaffordable. Only a tiny fraction of all estates pay any estate tax. In 2004, only 1 percent of estates in Michigan and 1.2 percent nationwide paid any estate tax. And as the amount exempted from the tax continues to rise to $3.5 million per person in 2009, the percentage gets even smaller. And despite claims to the contrary, even without this misguided bill, those families actually subject to the estate tax will still be able to pass on great wealth to their children.

Once phased in, this so-called ``compromise'' proposal would cost at least 75 percent as much as repealing the estate tax entirely. In the first ten-year period in which the proposal would be in full effect, it would cost nearly $600 billion. The cost would be $750 billion when interest payments on the additional debt are taken into account.

We simply cannot afford such a massive tax cut that would push us even further into the deficit ditch. Today, each American citizen's share of the debt is almost $29,000. As we continue to run up record yearly deficits, the country's total debt will be more than $11 trillion by 2011, which is $37,000 per person. It is not just reckless fiscal and economic policy to saddle future generations with this kind of crushing debt burden; passing this kind of burden to our children and grandchildren goes against what should be our basic values.

In the words of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who proposed the estate tax: ``[I]nherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.''

If we have any hope of getting our Federal budget deficit under control, eliminating the estate tax for the extremely wealthy is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need to look out for all of our citizens, not just the very wealthiest among us. This giveaway to a tiny fraction of estates will ultimately have to be paid for by steep cuts in government services or tax increases that will likely impact far more Americans.

To achieve the goal of more tax cuts for the very few, this bill holds hostage two critical issues. First, it includes a desperately needed, though flawed, increase in the minimum wage. And, second, it has a package of popular tax benefits that includes allowing families to deduct up to $4,000 in tuition payments and tax credits for research and development.

Minimum wage workers have not seen a Federal raise for 10 years. During that same time period, Congress

raised its own pay eight times. An employee working full-time on minimum wage earns only $10,712 per year, which is below the Federal poverty level. It is shameful this Congress find it acceptable that Americans work hard every day, all year long, at legal jobs and still languish in poverty.

I have cosponsored a bill that gives the working men and women of this country the pay raise that they deserve, legislation that would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in several increments. If the majority cared about rewarding the hard work of a large number of Americans as much as they cared about protecting the enormous wealth of a few others, there would be a clean vote just on raising the minimum wage.

Even though the so-called trifecta bill would raise the minimum wage for many workers, it would also result in a pay cut for many Americans. It includes a ``tip credit'' provision that really should be called a tip penalty. The bill allows workers in industries in which tips are commonplace--such as waiters, waitresses, hotel maids, parking attendants and bartenders--to receive as little as $2.13 before the tips.

Although this tip penalty has been Federal law for years, States have been free to guarantee higher wages to workers in these industries. This bill would supersede those state laws to permit the lower wages. This will decrease wages in at least seven States, and it will set a dangerous precedent by allowing the Federal Government to interfere with the States to cut the wages of the lowest-paid workers.

This bill also holds captive several important expiring tax provisions that have broad support and would easily pass on their own. The provisions include the work opportunity tax credit, which encourages employers to hire members of targeted groups such as high risk youth, families receiving food stamps, SSI recipients, and qualified veterans. Another provision, the welfare-to-work tax credit, enables employers to claim a credit on the first $10,000 of wages paid to certain long-term family assistance recipients.

Another provision is the deduction for the expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers of up to $125 for books and other supplies. And there is a deduction of up to $4,000 for qualified tuition and related expenses. There is also a provision that would help shippers on the Great Lakes.

Finally, the expiring provisions include a critical tax credit for research and development done here in the U.S. This is an important way for the Government to help our Nation's economic competitiveness, especially in the manufacturing sector, which represents nearly two- thirds of our total private R&D. While the R&D credit's cost of $16 billion for two years is a significant investment by the Government, each dollar of the credit leads to a significant increase in business R&D spending, thus spurring economic growth. Congress should enact this important program on a permanent basis, instead of revisiting it every year or two, given all the uncertainty that is created by doing so.

It will be shameful if these provisions--which are good for the economy, important for our people, and supported by this Congress--are not renewed because of the political gamesmanship on this bill.

Mr. President, we hopefully will not fall for this political trick. The American people deserve better from their Government.

If the Republican leaders want to pass a minimum wage increase, give us a clean bill that does that and we'll pass it today. If they want to extend the popular and reasonable tax provisions that are expiring, let's work together to do that. But the pending bill would require us to swallow two poison pills and one aspirin. Hopefully, that combination will be resoundingly rejected by the Senate.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators Kyl and Hutchison. I would like to extend my thanks to both of my colleagues and their staff for their assistance and guidance on many of the provisions in the bill.

The original Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 saw the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia--specifically, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan--as a distinct region bound by history and common interests with a shared potential that was of critical importance to the United States.

The goals of that legislation were as follows: to promote independent, democratic government; to promote the protection of human rights, tolerance, and pluralism; to aid in the resolution of conflicts and support political, economic, and security cooperation in order to foster regional stability and economic interdependence; to promote financial and economic development based on market principles; to aid in the development of communications, transportation, health and human services infrastructure; to promote and protect the interests of U.S. businesses and investments.

These basic policy goals have not changed; however, historic events since 1999 have had a significant impact on the region's political systems, economic conditions, and security situation which affect U.S. perceptions of and interests in the region. These changes include: the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, which clarified the nature and source of the key threats facing this country; the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban regime; the series of ``colored revolutions'' in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan; Deteriorating relations between the U.S. and certain regional leaders, especially Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, and the closure of the U.S. base in that country; the growing influence of regional powers, namely Russia and China; greater U.S. oil and gas interests in the Caspian region; and the threat posed by Iran, which is seeking to develop a nuclear potential.

In light of these changes, the Silk Road Act needs to be updated and revised to better address some of the new challenges the U.S. faces in its relations with Central Asia and the Caucasus.

The U.S.'s vital interests in the Caspian region include: ensuring the independence and security of Azerbaijan and Georgia, through which critical oil and gas pipelines transit; containing Iran; ensuring access to oil and gas reserves; maintaining good relations with Kazakhstan; promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts; and keeping Russian geopolitical ambitions in check.

Further East, U.S. interests include: helping Kyrgyzstan to make its Tulip Revolution a success; the political stabilization of Afghanistan and enhancement of its security by defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and its satellite organizations; political reform and liberalization in the countries of Central Asia to neutralize radical Islamic movements, such as Hizb-ut- Tahrir al-Islami, HUT--Islamic Army of Liberation; reduction of drug production and exports; creation and/or support of the U.S. military base network; and social and economic development in the states of Central Asia.

To these ends, among other priorities, this bill emphasizes the importance of East-West gas and oil pipelines, such as the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, BTC. BTC ensures Azerbaijan's security and economic future, and binds the country with neighboring Georgia and Turkey, anchoring Azerbaijan in the network of Western states and institutions.

The bill also includes Afghanistan as a Silk Road country and promotes the integration of Afghanistan with neighboring Central Asian states in terms of security, trade, infrastructure and energy grids.

In all the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, it is critical to promote democratic development. Among this bill's initiatives are calls for supporting independent media outlets, especially electronic media, and also for satellite TV programming, to provide authoritative news and more diverse opinions than are otherwise available. Specifically, it supports satellite TV broadcasting into Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran and the activities of their diasporas in the United States. Furthermore, the bill offers assistance for the establishment of civil service institutes to train civil servants at all levels in the rule of law, conduct of elections, respect for citizens' rights, and the needs of a market economy.

No less important is the need to accelerate and broaden economic reform and modernization in the Silk Road countries. Accordingly, this bill provides assistance in the privatization of state enterprises and deregulation of the economy.

The bill also calls for assistance with the establishment of the Caspian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, CBRD, to help Silk Road states address problems caused by increased revenues from energy exports, and dangers to macroeconomic stability and overheating of the economy infrastructure, as well as promote development in the region.

In light of Trans-Caspian Oil and Gas Pipelines, this bill encourages the governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and especially Turkmenistan to improve their business climate and investor confidence by fully disclosing their internationally audited hydrocarbon reserve.

The bill strongly supports activities that promote the participation of U.S. companies and investors in the planning, financing, and construction of infrastructure for communications, transportation, including air transportation, and energy and trade including highways, railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance, telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines.

Furthermore, the bill would assist in the removal of legal and institutional barriers to continental and regional trade and the harmonization of border and tariff regimes, including improved mechanisms for transit through Pakistan to Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.

With respect to the World Trade Organization, the bill offers support to Silk Road countries seeking WTO accession, providing assistance in reform as needed. Recognizing that PNTR status, through graduation from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 Trade Act, and WTO membership have been extended to Armenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, the bill calls for extending the same status to the other two most advanced economies of the region, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, by graduating them from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, extending PNTR status and aiding in WTO accession. But before that support is offered, it is important for the two countries to demonstrate that they are capable of dealing with the demands of a vibrant economy in a democratic setting.

A detailed examination of this bill will reveal many more initiatives. But as you can see, Mr. President, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006 takes a comprehensive approach to the region, encompassing security, economic development, democratic governance and human rights. I believe it targets the key issues that U.S. policymakers must address in our ever more important effort to establish solid, long-lasting relationships with the countries of the Silk Road. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and I look forward to discussing it with them.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concerns with a bill before this body, H.R. 5970, that unnecessarily links a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage and a broadly-supported package of tax extenders to an unaffordable and irresponsible cut in the tax on multimillion-dollar estates.

This so-called ``trifecta'' bill sends a clear message to the American people about the priorities of the leadership on the other side of the aisle--priorities that are badly out of step with the needs of ordinary Americans.

Many of us in this body support fiscally responsible reform of the estate tax. But compared to most reasonable proposals, the one in this bill would cost nearly twice as much, while adding very little additional value.

Over the last several years, the number of Americans affected by the estate tax has fallen dramatically as the exemption level has been raised. In 2000, with an exemption of $675,000, there were 50,000 taxable estates. That number has fallen to only 13,000 today, with the exemption level now standing at $2 million for an individual and $4 million for a couple. In 2009, the exemption will rise to $3.5 million--or $7 million for a couple--and only 7,000 estates will be subject to the tax. These 7,000 taxable estates represent the largest three-tenths of 1 percent of estates in America, all of which exceed $3.5 million in size. By 2009, only this small fraction will owe even a cent under the estate tax.

Compared to current or 2009 rates, this ``trifecta'' bill would provide a tax cut for only the largest 8,200 estates in the country. And the average size of the tax benefit received by each of these estates would be $1.4 million. Out of a nation of 300 million people, only the wealthiest 8,200 would gain from this bill's estate tax proposal, but it would cost the American people $753 billion over the first decade alone once it has been fully phased in.

The leadership on the other side of the aisle knows that this body would rightly reject such a gratuitously irresponsible proposal if it were offered as a stand-alone bill. So the majority leader in this body and his counterparts in the House of Representatives have decided, in what amounts to political blackmail, to attach this estate tax measure to a moving vehicle, the package of tax extenders that includes provisions like the research and development tax credit that supports innovation by America's businesses, the tax deduction for college tuition that helps students and their families pay for the skyrocketing cost of higher education, and the tax deduction for teacher classroom expenses, among many other important items.

In effect, the supporters of this ``trifecta'' bill have decided to hold hostage these important tax provisions, which benefit families and businesses across the income spectrum, to an estate tax measure that, on its own, would otherwise be rejected. And in a misguided attempt to ``sweeten the deal'' or provide political cover, they have added a provision to raise the minimum wage that, itself, is flawed due to the wage cut it would force upon many employees who earn their pay through tips.

Many of us in this body have been fighting for years to increase the minimum wage, only to have our efforts blocked repeatedly. America's lowest-wage workers have waited far too long for a raise--it has been 10 years, almost to the day, since this body last voted to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour.

In the time since then, the minimum wage's real buying power has fallen to its lowest level in 51 years. For a full-time worker, a wage of $5.15 per hour translates to a yearly income of $10,700--an amount that is nearly $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. These are working adults, with full-time jobs, who are living in poverty.

At those wages, these working Americans can barely afford housing and food. They certainly can't afford adequate health care, child care, or education needed to lift them out of a low-wage job. With gasoline prices and other energy costs rising, one wonders how people make ends meet.

Unfortunately, too many are falling behind.

And too often, the victims are children, whose only fault was to be born into the wrong family. More than a third of the 37 million Americans currently living in poverty are children. Through no fault of their own, these voiceless Americans live day-to-day without adequate food and shelter, forced to choose between food and rent or medicine or utilities.

In my State of Connecticut, we have a population of about 3.4 million people and the perception is that we are a rich State. But we are not exempt, in Connecticut, from the scourges of poverty and hunger. In fact, more than 280,000 people in my State, many of them children, are food insecure--meaning they don't have access at all times to the food necessary to lead a healthy life. Two of the largest food banks in Connecticut provide food for more than 350,000 different people each year. Working people make up 25 percent of those using those emergency feeding programs. People are working hard and they can't even feed their families--how is this acceptable?

Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour would directly boost the earnings of 6.6 million working Americans. It would also indirectly benefit an estimated 8.3 million additional workers who currently earn close to $7.25 per hour and would likely see their wages rise in response to a minimum wage increase.

Some of my colleagues have argued that raising the minimum wage would harm employers or reduce overall levels of employment, but study after study has shown these claims to be unfounded. A recent Gallup poll found that 86 percent of small business owners do not think the minimum wage negatively affects their business. And a substantial body of research by well-known economists finds no significant harm to overall levels of employment based on changes to the minimum wage. So while a minimum wage increase would dramatically improve the lives of millions of Americans, the potential costs would be small.

America's lowest-earning working men and women desperately need a raise--even a small one. But this bill, by tying an increase in the minimum wage to a costly ``virtual repeal'' of the estate tax, has the potential to cancel out the good that would be done. By adding $753 billion to the national debt--which already stands at $8.4 trillion-- this estate tax proposal would

force deep cuts in services for all Americans, regardless of income. But those who earn the least would likely be hurt the most.

No one who supports raising the minimum wage or approving the bipartisan package of tax extenders should be fooled into thinking that this bill represents a serious attempt to help American workers, businesses, or taxpayers.

The estate tax proposal that has been attached to these important measures is unaffordable and unnecessary. It would drive us deeper into debt with foreign creditors, force damaging funding cuts during already tight budgetary times--not to mention during a time of war--and increase the burden on our children and grandchildren of paying for our excess.

For these reasons, Mr. President, I cannot support this irresponsible legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.