Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005

Mr. President, we are now considering the repeal of the estate tax. The estate tax is a tax paid by 2 out of every 1,000 Americans. It is not a tax that will affect the vast majority of Americans because they have not accumulated enough wealth in their lifetime to be subject to the tax.

It is an action which is imposed on the very wealthiest, the very richest people in America. It is a tax which is imposed on their estates after a certain amount is exempt. Up to $4 million is exempt for a couple under current estate tax, and that number is scheduled to rise.

However, the Republican majority believes this tax is unfair. They believe it is unfair for the wealthiest people in America, who have accumulated millions of dollars, to pay any tax to the Government on that accumulated wealth when they die. They say that is fundamentally unfair. They come to the Senate with a sense of outrage that we would ask wealthy people in America to pay taxes, so they propose the elimination or dramatic reduction of this tax, to the point where it will add substantially to the deficit of the United States of America.

This is not a tax cut for the wealthy; it is a tax deferral. By reducing or eliminating the tax on the wealthiest, they are passing the burden of taxation on to those in lower income groups. With their elimination of the death tax, they are creating a birth tax.

In other words, if you happen to be born in America and you are one of the 997 out of 1,000 who don't pay the estate tax, you will have a bigger debt and a bigger burden because the Republican majority believes the wealthiest should be spared paying taxes. People who have had the good fortune of living and succeeding in America should be spared, according to the Republicans, any responsibility to pay back to this great Nation for the benefits they have accrued during their lifetime. There is a sense of outrage on the Republican side of the aisle that somehow we would impose this tax. They have created this vast mythology about the estate tax. They translated it into a death tax, suggesting to Americans that when you die you must pay taxes. That is plain false. Only 2 or 3 out of 1,000 people who die each year pay any such tax. Yet the average person on the street believes the Government is going to come and grab whatever small amounts they have kept together for their sons and daughters and take it away in tax collection. It is not true. It is false. It is misleading. It is deceptive.

Who is pushing this great effort to eliminate the estate tax? Will it surprise you to know they are the fattest special interests in Washington, DC? An analysis has shown--and these numbers are nothing short of amazing--that 18 families in the United States of America, with a combined net worth of $185 billion, have spent $200 million lobbying on Capitol Hill to repeal this estate tax. Why? They are going to make a fortune because their fortunes will be

protected from being taxed. This is the ultimate special interest bill. This bill has nothing to do with the average American, the average American family, the average American farm or the average American business. It is about the wealthiest people in America flexing their muscles, pushing through on Capitol Hill the most outrageous piece of special interest legislation in modern memory. The Republican majority is pushing this to the floor with a straight face: We want to eliminate the death tax.

What does it mean for the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell's soup and other companies? It means that if they are given full repeal of the estate tax, these 18 families will collectively net a windfall of $71 billion. That is what this is about.

Who will end up paying for it? Our children will. We will take the money which we are not going to collect from the estate tax and end up borrowing. And who will loan us the money? More and more the Bush administration goes overseas to borrow the money: Japan, China, Korea, the oil sheikhs, they will loan us the money. But there are strings attached. Do you remember the Dubai Ports deal? Think there is a connection between these Middle Eastern oil giants now buying into the American economy and what we are doing on the estate tax? It is directly linked. There are bankers, mortgagors. They sell us oil. Why? Because the Republican majority runs up the biggest deficits in the history of the United States.

When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.8 trillion. The accumulated debt in the history of America was $5.8 trillion. Five years later, the national debt is knocking on the door of $9 trillion. And if they continue to eliminate taxes on the wealthiest people, the debt will be $11 trillion. For the students who are watching this debate on television, in the galleries, through C-SPAN, let me tell you, this effort to find a benefit for the wealthiest families, to absolve them from paying debts for the success they have experienced, is going to be visited on our children and grandchildren. Where is the fairness and where is the justice? Where is the sense of outrage that we would give this special interest legislation such a priority in the Senate? Why wouldn't we consider changing the Tax Code so that average working families can deduct the cost of college education for their kids? Isn't that something good for America? Isn't that of greater value than to say to the superrich: We are going to spare you from paying $71 billion in taxes over the life of this repeal? No. From their point of view, you don't think about the families putting the kids through college. You don't worry about the situation where we have so many Americans, 46 million in fact, without health insurance today. You don't deal with the reality of funding education. You focus your attention and the time of the Republican majority on repealing a tax on the super wealthiest people in America.

Warren Buffett is the second richest man in America. He said: Do you know what is going on here? It is class warfare. And do you know what? My class is winning.

They sure are.

Today the Republican majority will try to put a victory on the board for the richest people in America. Why do we do this? For some, it is a matter of philosophy. They happen to believe if the rich get richer, America will be better off. That has been a philosophy around this country for a long time. I come from a different point of view. I think the strength of America is in its families, those families getting up and going to work every day, doing their best to keep families together, to save money for the future, to put their kids through college. It is in small businesses that take risks and sometimes fail but, when they succeed, build into a business that gives them a chance to hire more people. It is in family farms. That is the strength of America. These other folks have done quite well.

The New York Times went to the Farm Bureau and asked them: Name for us a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability. Not one single example derived from the American Farm Bureau. They couldn't find one. I did the same thing in Illinois. Not one farm has been lost because of Federal estate tax liability.

We will hear them crying and moaning and whining and rending their garments about how this is needed to save family farms. They can't come up with a single example where a family farm has been lost by the estate tax. According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 123 family-owned farms and 135 family-owned small businesses would pay any estate tax at all with a $2 million exemption level--across America, pay any tax at all, let alone risk losing their business or farm.

This has been exaggerated to a point which is shameful. To think that at a time when we are facing the biggest deficits, when we are involved in a war where we are asking our sons and daughters to risk their lives for America, that we are going to make those who are comfortable more comfortable by sparing them their taxes, that we are going to welcome home the soldiers by saying, thanks for serving America and, incidentally, here is a larger national debt for you to carry the rest of your life.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this effort to repeal the estate tax.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, this bill to repeal the estate tax is unfair and unaffordable. Full repeal is estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $776 billion over the first 10 years it is in full effect. And in fact that cost would be nearly $1 trillion when interest payments on the extra debt that would be required are taken into account.

Repealing the estate tax would only benefit a tiny percentage of the very wealthiest Americans among us by enabling them to pass additional millions of dollars to their heirs tax-free. It would shift an even larger share of the Nation's tax burden and debt onto the backs of average working families and our children and grandchildren.

Only a tiny fraction of estates pay the estate tax. In 2004, only 1 percent of estates in Michigan and 1.2 percent nationwide paid any estate tax. In 2006, those numbers will likely be even smaller because each individual's exemption from the estate tax will increase from $1.5 million to $2 million, with those numbers doubled for married couples. In fact, it is estimated that in 2006, just one-half of 1 percent of all estates will owe any estate tax. This percentage will continue to shrink as the exemption level rises. By 2009, when $3.5 million--$7 million for married couples--will be exempt, only three out of every 1,000 estates will owe any estate tax; that's one-third of 1 percent.

Why are the Republican leaders pressing this? Over the last decade, a massive public relations campaign funded by a handful of families has succeeded in creating the mistaken impression that the estate tax catches millions of average Americans. According to a recent report by two nonprofit organizations, Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy, 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion quietly financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax. The report tells how these families spent over $200 million contributing to political campaigns, financing outside lobby groups and trade associations, and creating a massive anti-estate tax coalition that served as the main coordinator of the repeal campaign.

The advocates of repeal have not been forthcoming about the billions they would save if the estate tax were repealed, but instead they have promoted stories about the effects of the estate tax on family farms and small businesses. Such family-run enterprises make up the core of the American economy and society, so it is no surprise that using them as the poster children in the campaign for repeal has been met with some public relations success. The well-funded initiative has left many with the mistaken impression that the estate tax requires many small businesses and family farms to be sold to cover the estate tax bill.

Few, if any, examples of that are ever offered, but no matter. The disinformation campaign continues. What is the reality? According to data from the Tax Policy Center, of the 18,800 taxable estates in 2004, there were only 440--or two percent--in which farm or business assets made up at least half the total value of the estate. Forty percent of these 440 farm and business estates were valued at less than $2 million and paid an effective tax rate of only 1.6 percent.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, at the upcoming exemption level of $3.5 million, only 200 farms in the year 2000 would have had to even file the estate tax, and fewer than 15 of those estates would have lacked sufficient liquidity to pay the estate tax.

From these numbers, it is clear that an exemption level and other safeguards can be set to keep effectively all small businesses and family farms from having to sell their businesses to pay the tax. That is why I hope that at some point in the near future we will be able to adopt a commonsense proposal to permanently set an appropriate, inflation-adjusted exemption level.

But proceeding to this bill at this time would not achieve that goal. The majority has indicated that if we proceed to debate this bill, consideration would be limited to a small number of predetermined amendments, each of which would set the tax rate on inherited wealth lower than the tax rate on workers' wages. Giving tax preference to inheritance over workers' wages is not the American way.

Furthermore, in the face of mounting deficits, adoption of any of the so-called compromise amendments being talked about would be fiscally irresponsible and would unfairly burden average taxpayers to make up the difference in lost revenue from the Treasury. The proposal endorsed by Senator Kyl would still cost eighty-four percent of the cost of full repeal.

The estate tax was created not only to raise revenue but also to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of just a few families. It ensures that those who prosper so greatly in the American economic system do their fair share to contribute to our continued national well-being. Just like other Americans, the very wealthy benefit from public investment of tax dollars in areas such as defense, homeland security, environmental protection and infrastructure, and they rely even more than others on the Government's protection of individual property rights. The estate tax is not intended to discourage people from seeing to it that their children are more secure, but rather, it is aimed at helping keep avenues of opportunity open to all citizens. In the words of 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.''

We should make sure that our current and future tax policies consider not only the value to taxpayers of their take-home pay or accumulated wealth, but also the value to them of the essential government services that are funded by their taxes. It is not a popular thing to talk about these days, but our Nation relies on and needs tax revenues. Every day in Iraq and around the world our military needs tanks, aircraft carriers and protective body armor. We need scientists working toward cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and birth defects. We need teachers to educate our children so they can keep our Nation economically competitive in the next generation. We need USDA personnel to screen our meat and livestock for mad cow disease and harmful toxins. We need Government grants to help buy bulletproof vests for the cops on our streets. We need dollars to build new bridges and highways to relieve congested traffic, as well as dollars to repair potholes in existing roads.

On top of these things and many others we already appreciate, there are many other important initiatives: lowering the spiraling cost of healthcare so that all Americans can get the care and medicine they need, improving our education system so that every child grows up prepared to make a valuable contribution to our society, investing in leap-ahead energy technologies that will boost our auto industry and help end our dependence on imported oil, preserving our irreplaceable natural resources, and protecting the jobs provided by our Nation's manufacturers.

If we are to have any hope of paying for even a few of these priorities, eliminating the estate tax for the extremely wealthy is exactly the wrong thing to do. We are running record deficits and we are fighting a war in Iraq. We simply cannot afford such a massive tax cut which would push us even further into the deficit ditch. Today, each American citizen's share of the debt is almost $28,000, and as we continue to run up record yearly deficits, the country's total debt is estimated to reach over $12 trillion by 2016, which is $39,000 per person. It is not just reckless fiscal and economic policy to saddle future generations with this kind of crushing

debt burden; it is morally reprehensible to pass this kind of burden to our children and grandchildren.

We need to look out for all of our citizens, not just the few who are extraordinarily wealthy. I cannot agree with policy changes that favor a handful of multimillionaires, one-third of 1 percent of our people who are the very wealthiest, at the expense of working American families and of critical national priorities. That is why I am opposed to repealing the estate tax.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Durbin, to introduce the Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2005. As we look forward to celebrating President's Day this coming Monday, I can think of no better way to honor our former Chief Executives than by passing this important piece of legislation.

The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would create a new and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve and maintain Presidential sites, such as birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. It is our duty to preserve these sites so that future generations of Americans can gain a better understanding of those who influenced the development of our great Nation.

In an era when innovative technology has been incorporated into the curriculum in schools throughout the country, we often forget that one of the best learning tools is that which a child can touch and see. Visiting the birthplace or home of the same individuals talked about in the classroom or read about online provides a completely different atmosphere to appreciate history. The opportunity to visit the actual birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs provides a real-life glimpse into the lives of our former Presidents.

Currently, family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, historical societies, historic preservation organizations, and other non-profit organizations own the majority of these sites. These entities often have little funding and are unable to meet the demands of maintaining such important sites because operating costs must be met before maintenance needs. As a result, these sites are left to deteriorate slowly.

I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my home State of Ohio, a State that has been the home of eight Presidents. I was disturbed during one such visit to the Ulysses S. Grant house. There, I saw the discoloration and falling plaster due to water damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the front porch was pulling away from the house--the very same porch where President Harding delivered his now famous campaign speeches. Fortunately, we were able to obtain funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating further. We need to continue to provide Federal assistance for maintenance projects today in order to prevent larger maintenance problems tomorrow.

These sites are far too important to let slowly decay. Our legislation would authorize grants, administered by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects on Presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation would establish a five- member committee, including the Director of the National Park Service, a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and a State historic preservation officer. This committee would make grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant would require that half of the funds come from non-Federal sources. Up to $5 million would be made available annually.

The Presidential Sites Improvement Act would make sure that every American has the chance to appreciate a real piece of history--a chance at understanding the lives of the great men who have led our Nation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I have just introduced be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues Senators Kohl and Leahy, to introduce the Antitrust Investigative Improvements Act of 2005. We do so to strengthen the Department of Justice's ability to investigate criminal antitrust conspiracies. This bill gives the Department of Justice authority to seek a wiretap order from a Federal judge, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between antitrust conspirators.

Investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies, such as cartels and bid-rigging, is the core mission of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Because of the harm this behavior can do to the economy and to innocent consumers, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Hewitt Pate, has said that prosecuting ``cartels remain[s] our top enforcement priority at the Antitrust Division.'' As a result, in the United States, we punish such illegal behavior harshly. Corporations can be fined up to $100 million and individuals can be fined up to $1 million and be incarcerated for 10 years. But, despite the high priority the Antitrust Division places on these cases and the tough penalties under the law, up to now, we have not given the Department of Justice all the tools it needs to investigate and prosecute criminal antitrust conspiracies.

In criminal antitrust investigations, to prosecute a case, it is critical that prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings of the conspiracy. To meet their heavy burden of proof, prosecutors must marshal strong evidence showing, for example, the terms of the illegal agreement, the participants in the illegal agreement, and precisely when the illegal agreement was reached. This type of evidence is extremely difficult to gain without penetrating the inner workings of the conspiracy.

The Department has principally two techniques for investigating criminal antitrust enterprises. First, it may enlist the cooperation of a witness. The

cooperating witness may be, for example, a customer being harmed by the conspiracy or a co-conspirator to the antitrust crime. Under this approach, a cooperating witness may testify about the details of the conspiracy or may record conversations with the conspirators, either through videotape or audiotape. One important restriction is that the cooperating witness must be present at the conversation when recording. But, if the Department cannot secure a cooperating witness, which is often the case, this technique is not available.

Second, the Antitrust Division also has a corporate leniency program, which has been very successful in investigating and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies. In exchange for fully cooperating with an antitrust investigation, an otherwise guilty corporation may receive lenient treatment. But, this method, too, depends on the cooperation of one who was on the inside of the criminal conspiracy.

Our bill adds a third technique by amending Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq.) to make a criminal violation of the Sherman Act a ``predicate offense'' for an order authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications, hereinafter ``wiretap order''. Amending this law to make criminal antitrust offenses a predicate offense would give the Department of Justice a much needed tool to investigate the inner workings of criminal antitrust conspiracies. Unlike using a cooperating witness or the corporate leniency program, a wiretap order does not require the cooperation of someone who has inside knowledge of the conspiracy or who is actually participating in the conspiracy. Upon a showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, the Department of Justice could obtain a wiretap order, for a limited time period, to monitor communications between conspirators.

There are over 150 predicate offenses from title 18 and dozens of other predicate offenses from other parts of the U.S. Criminal Code. Offenses, such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate offenses, but up to now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on the list. I think this is a mistake. Criminal antitrust offenses are basically white-collar, fraud offenses, and often do much more harm to innocent consumers than other types of fraud offenses. It is time for antitrust to be added as a predicate offense, given the gravity of the crime.

This idea is not new. Past Assistant Attorney Generals of the Antitrust Division have supported the idea for such legislation. And, in 1999, our neighbor to the north, Canada, passed similar legislation. It is an idea whose time has come.

I urge my colleagues to support this important reform to strengthen the enforcement of our antitrust laws. I ask unanimous consent to print the bill in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, Michael Caudle's father founded the Greenfield Lumber Company in Greenfield, TN in 1955. Michael's dad and his granddad spent years building that business into the trusted, reliable family business that exists today. But when Michael's dad passed away 6 years ago in 2000, the business was put on the brink. The family at that time, all of a sudden, was forced to pay nearly $400,000 in death taxes and almost had to sell the business they had worked so hard to put together to pay the tax.

Michael says he hopes to pass that lumber company on to his children and his grandchildren. It is his life. It is what he has worked for: to give them that sense of family pride and community, that pride and community that his dad had passed on to him.

But like so many American families, his dream is threatened by what has come to be known in my State as the ``buzzard tax,'' and by people who don't see the value in preserving a hard-won family tradition, that name is appropriate.

One Tennessee couple told my office they decided not to trust their fate to the tax man. They sold their east Tennessee car dealership so that if one of them were to die suddenly, the other one simply wouldn't have to pay those exorbitant taxes; that burden wouldn't fall on their shoulders. They didn't want that buzzard picking apart that dream that they had built together.

Fred Heinecke's parents, unfortunately, didn't know about that kind of tax planning. As Mr. Heinecke of Vanore, TN wrote to the Knoxville News just this Saturday:

Current law allows a $4 million deduction for a couple.

That may be true if they die at the same time, such as in a

plane crash, but not if they die separately as most couples

do. I learned the hard way because my parents died a couple

years apart without a trust. When my mom died in 2003, I

wrote a painful check for over $300,000 to the Federal

government. This required the sale of property that had been

in the family for over 50 years.

Fred, like so many people, not only had to write that unexpected and huge check to the Federal Government in order to pay, he had to negotiate the sale of his parents' property at one of the worst moments in anybody's life, and that is the time of their death, the passing of his mom. As Fred's story, which is so typical and like so many other stories, illustrates, this death tax is unfair. I think that is the strongest argument of why we bring the repeal of the death tax back to the floor today. It is time to bury it. It is time for it to go.

In a few moments we will have a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 8, and we need to be very clear about what this vote means. A vote in favor is a vote to move forward with this important debate. A vote against is a vote to kill any chance of repealing or even reforming this onerous tax and is a vote in favor of returning the death tax to the pre-2001 confiscatory rate of 55 percent, an exemption of only $1 million per person.

Back in 2001, we passed a gradual phaseout of the death tax--real progress. Under that 2001 Economic Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act, the death tax is scheduled to disappear in 2010.

But under the terms of this compromise legislation, after 2010 it comes roaring back with that tax level of 55 percent in 2011. That is why we need to act. We need a permanent fix, and that is what this vote is all about.

Last spring, the House passed a bill to make full repeal of the death tax permanent. They did so with strong bipartisan support. Over a year has passed and thus now it is time for us to act.

Americans have broadly said they support repealing the death tax. In a recent poll commissioned by the Tax Foundation, nearly 70 percent polled in favor of repeal.

With stories like Mr. Henicke's, it is not hard to understand why. We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes, whether it is a water tax, a gas tax, a payroll tax, a utility tax, a cable tax, a property tax, a sales tax, an income tax--we are taxed every minute of our lives. We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. In fact, we are taxed so much that one nonpartisan organization calculates

that the first 5 months of the average American's salary is confiscated by the Government.

If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.

Some on the other side of the aisle argue that the death tax is a critical stream of Federal revenue and that in any event it only hits the superrich. Neither is true. Mounting evidence shows that once widespread estate tax avoidance is accounted for, the death tax nets zero to negative tax revenue. Worse yet, the death tax may be responsible for the loss of from as many as 170,000 to 250,000 potential jobs each year.

Meanwhile, it is not the superrich who are hardest hit by the death tax; family businesses bear the brunt. The Seattle Times Company reports that 89 percent of all taxable estates filed in 1995, before the 2001 reform, were $2.5 million or less in size. What does this mean?

A family-owned business stands to lose nearly half of all

its assets when it passes from one generation to the next.

That is over half of everything, including land, buildings,

equipment, money and more--all because of the current estate

tax law which is really a tax on death. They sell out,

letting long-term employees go. Not because they want to. But

because they have to. And the echo reverberates through an

entire community.

Just yesterday I heard from farmers and western landowners and listened to the damage, the harm they suffered as a result of this death tax. Some of my colleagues have said that the death tax doesn't hurt farmers, but the farmers simply take a different view. Many of them are cash poor. They own land handed down from their parents. They know there is no easy way their children can continue to work the land if they are subjected to this death tax, so rather than wait for the death tax to pick apart their family farm, they make plans to sell the land in advance. That is the part of the story that never gets told. The death tax not only confiscates the honest earnings of the recently deceased, it often forces families to divest themselves of that family enterprise.

In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax would go away, it was repealed. But that changed in the last century. The death tax was imposed and has never been lifted. Instead, it became entrenched and it took 90 years to roll back.

It is time to stop punishing America's entrepreneurs and job creators for saving, for investing, and succeeding. The death tax tells people it is better to consume today than to invest for the future; to consume today rather than save for the future; to spend now and leave nothing for later. That doesn't make sense. It is unfair.

On February 10 of this year I said the Senate would debate and decide the fate of the death tax. That time is upon us. I urge my colleagues to cast their vote in favor of cloture, of proceeding to allow debate on elimination of the death tax. If we do not, the death tax prevails. America's family businesses lose and so do the workers they hire and the communities they support. A vote for cloture is a vote to protect these family traditions. It is a vote for what is right, for simple fairness.

We will turn to the vote in just a few moments. Again, this is a vote on the motion to proceed to allow debate. It will require 60 votes on this very important issue. If we get 60 votes--and I hope we do get those 60 votes--I expect we will see a cloture motion on the underlying bill. If that underlying bill is not successful, I would think that we would need to gather together to have compromise legislation, and I would expect a vote on that as well.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today we are debating repeal of the estate tax. Many of us have supported reform to the estate tax in a reasonable way that will help families keep their small businesses and farms. But this debate about repeal of the estate tax has become unreasonable and fiscally irresponsible.

Some in the Republican majority are calling for full and permanent repeal of the estate tax and have referred to the estate tax as ``immoral'' and ``vicious.'' I disagree. Only very wealthy Americans will benefit from the proposal before us today. It is a proposal that does not reward work, entrepreneurship, or innovation.

I also wonder why we are debating this today. The estate tax debate was postponed last fall because of Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans is still recovering and all signs point to the region being in dire need of more Federal assistance in the months to come. I believe it is still an inappropriate time to debate the estate tax. Congress just passed a $70 billion tax cut that will give those with an income of $1 million an average tax cut of $43,000. Additionally, we have had troops in Afghanistan since October of 2001 and in Iraq since March of 2003. This is a time for sacrifice, not time for another debt financed tax cut for the richest Americans.

Congress is not sending the right message by debating the repeal of the estate tax when soldiers are risking their lives and many citizens are still left homeless by Hurricane Katrina. The estate tax is simply the wrong priority.

Only a few wealthy Americans will benefit from repeal of the estate tax, but it will harm many. Repeal hurts tens of millions of Americans by shifting even more of the tax burden from those who hold wealth to those who work day in and day out to earn a paycheck. Since the proposal is not paid for, it hurts our children and grandchildren by creating billions in debt and interest that they will have to pay for. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly a trillion dollars. This revenue could be well spent on essential initiatives such as rebuilding the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina, our national defense, children's health care, equitable tax reform or paying down the debt.

Repeal of the estate tax hurts millions of working families who need Congress to resolve far greater problems in our tax code, like the punishing and expanding alternative minimum tax, AMT. The AMT is levied on taxpayers merely because they have children and happen to live in particular States. Yet according to the majority leader, the estate tax--which is levied on individuals who will inherit at least several million dollars--is the ``cruelest and most unfair tax.'' I don't see the logic in that argument and I am confident the American people can see through it as well.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that estate tax repeal is needed to help small businesses, but I bet you would not hear them discuss a provision in H.R. 8 that will result in increased capital gains taxes for small firms. Under current law when a person inherits an asset, they receive a ``step-up'' in basis. This means that the person inheriting the assets receives a tax basis increased to fair market value at time of death. When the person sells the property, he or she is only taxed on the difference between the sales price and the fair market value at the date of death.

H.R. 8 would limit the amount of assets that are eligible for step-up basis. Assets exceeding $1.3 million would receive ``carryover'' basis under which the heirs receive the same basis as the deceased owner. Assets of up to $4.3 million transferred to a spouse will receive step- up basis. Carryover basis usually results in higher capital gains taxes because tax will be owed on the difference between the sales price and the basis that the decedent had in the asset. Certain assets will no longer have step-up basis which gives heirs a basis equal to the fair market value at time of death. This change in basis will result in a greater difference between the sale price and the heir's basis.

I agree that Congress should address the estate tax in the coming years, but we need to keep in mind that the current uncertainty was created by the majority's unsound tax policy. It is because of the Republican tax policies that the estate tax is now set to disappear in 2010 and then return to its previous levels in 2011. We tried in the past to make estate tax relief permanent. In 2002, we proposed exempting estates of up to $4 billion and permanently reducing the top rate to 45 percent, but that was not acceptable to advocates for full repeal. Now the Republican majority points to the problems they created with earlier tax cuts as justification for repealing the estate tax-- creating further problems, greater inequity, and more debt.

According to a July 2005 Congressional Budget Office, CBO, report, very few farms and small businesses will pay the estate tax if it is set at a reasonable level. The CBO report shows that if the exemption is set at $2 million, only 123 farms and 135 family-owned businesses would have taxable estates and even fewer would have insufficient liquidity to pay the estate tax. Even if one disagrees with the CBO report, we should all be able to agree that raising the exemption amount helps small business and farms. Proposals that exempt inheritances above $3.5 million would overwhelmingly benefit those who own stocks and other securities and really have nothing to do with helping family farms or businesses. If the exemption is increased to $3.5 million, only 0.3 percent of all estates would be affected. Many of these assets have never been taxed, given that assets of wealthy estate frequently include stocks that have never been taxed.

Often it is argued that the estate tax needs to be repealed to assist small businesses. There is no concrete evidence that a family-run business has been put out of business by the estate tax. If the AMT is not addressed it will hurt many more small businesses, but instead of addressing it, Republicans prefer to promote the myth that the estate tax shatters small businesses.

At a time when income inequality is increasing, the estate tax should not be the priority of the Senate. According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the average net worth of an American family grew 6.3 percent while the bottom 40 percent of families' median net worth fell.

When President Theodore Roosevelt advocated an estate tax nearly a century ago, he argued that, the ``man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state, because he derives special advantage from the mere existence of government.'' He further advocated, ``We are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality, which means injustice; the inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege. We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far as is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service.'' We should heed the words of President Roosevelt and vote against estate tax repeal.

We need to return to a tax system of fairness and equity. Our tax system should reward work and create wealth for more people; it should not be skewed to the wealthiest among us. We need to work together to find a solution to the estate tax which reflects the reality of our fiscal situation and provides certainty for hard-working families.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced S. Con. Res. 12, which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and S. 395, which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin has lost nearly 80,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Nationally, the country has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In addition to the loss of manufacturing jobs, I am deeply troubled by the Bush administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors.

There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system.

In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's 11 workforce development boards are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers on shoestring budgets.

I strongly support the work of these agencies and have urged the administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I regret that the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2006 does not provide adequate funding for WIA, and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my State and across our country receive the resources they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful.

I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care.

As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health.

As our population ages, and the baby boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going

to need an additional 1.2 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2010.

As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. Currently, health services is the largest industry in the country, providing 12.9 million jobs in 2002. It is estimated that 16 percent of all new jobs created between 2002 and 2012 will be in health services. This accounts for 3.5 million new jobs--more than any other industry.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth within health care will translate into a real need for workers) and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 67,430 health care positions by 2012. This represents a 30 percent increase in jobs in health care, over twice the rate of growth for Wisconsin jobs overall.

Mr. President, workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities.

As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family oriented standard of living.''

I believe we need to support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, it ensures that the cost of these grants would be offset.

This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes--from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program.

This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities.

I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, inc1uding the National Association of Workforce Boards, the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, the Southwestern Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, and the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin.

Mr. President, in order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senators Kohl, Lugar, Lieberman, Brownback, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Feingold, to introduce this important piece of legislation. Legislation that will ensure the United States government does not turn its back on political asylees or refugees who are the most vulnerable citizens seeking safety in this great country of ours.

As many of you may know, Congress as part of Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, modified the SSI program to include a seven-year time limit on the receipt of benefits for refugees and asylees. This policy was intended to balance the desire to have people who emigrant to the United States to become citizens, with an understanding that the naturalization process also takes time to complete. To allow adequate time for asylees and refugees to become naturalized citizens Congress provided the 7-year time limit before the expiration of SSI benefits.

Unfortunately, the naturalization process often takes longer than 7 years because applicants are requited to live in the United States for a minimum of 5 years prior to applying for citizenship and the INS often takes 3 or more years to process the application. Because of this time delay, many individuals are trapped in the system faced with the loss of their SSI benefits.

If Congress does not act to change the law, reports show that over the next 4 years nearly 30,000 elderly and disabled refugees and asylees will lose their Supplemental Security Income, SSI, benefits because their 7-year time limit will expire before they become citizens. Many of these individuals are elderly who fled persecution or torture in their home countries. They include Jews fleeing religious persecution in the former Soviet Union, Iraqi Kurds fleeing the Saddam Hussein regime, Cubans and Hmong people from the highlands of Laos who served on the side of the United States military during the Vietnam War. They are elderly and unable to work, and have become reliant on their SSI benefits as their primary income. To penalize them because of delays encountered through the bureaucratic process seems unjust and inappropriate.

The administration in its fiscal year 2006 budget acknowledged the necessity to correct this problem by dedicating funding to extend refugee eligibility for SSI beyond the 7-year limit. While I am pleased that they have taken the first step in correcting this problem, I am concerned the policy does not go far enough. Data shows that most people will need at least an additional 2 years to navigate and complete the naturalization process. Therefore, my colleagues and I have introduced this bill, which will provide a 2-year extension. We believe this will provide the time necessary to complete the process. .

I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other members of the Finance Committee to secure these changes during consideration of TANF reauthorization.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pathways to Independence Act of 2005, along with Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins. This bill includes two important provisions that we will work to include in TANF reauthorization. These provisions will help States work with TANF recipients who have disabilities to transition them into work.

In July 2002, the General Accounting Office reported that as many as 44 percent of TANF families have a parent or child with a physical or mental impairment. This is almost three times as high as among the non- TANF population in the United States. In eight percent of TANF families, there is both a parent and a child with a disability; among non-TANF families, this figure is one percent. The GAO's work confirmed the findings of earlier studies, including work by the Urban Institute and the HHS Inspector General.

These figures mean that we need to make sure that TANF reauthorization legislation gives States the ability and incentives to help families meet their current needs, while also helping them to move from welfare to work. This is the lesson that Oregon and many other States have already learned as they developed and refined their TANF programs.

The first provision of my bill provides a pragmatic approach to helping parents with disabilities and substance abuse problems receive the treatment and other rehabilitative services they will need to succeed in a work setting. It is designed so that, over time, States can gradually increase the work activity requirements, while continuing to provide clients with rehabilitative services. Under this proposal, much like in other proposals under consideration, a person participating in rehabilitation can be counted as engaged in work activity for three months. After the first three months, if a person continues to need rehabilitative services, the State can continue to count participation in those activities for another three months, so long as that person is engaged in some number of work hours, to be determined by the State.

The next step of my proposal builds on the concept of partial credit that is being considered in the Senate Finance Committee. If, after six months, a State determines that a person has a continuing need for rehabilitative services, the State may create a package that combines work activity with these services. The State will receive credit for the individual's efforts so long as at least one-half of the hours in which the individual participates are in core work activities. For example, if a State receives full credit for a person who works 30 hours per week, and the State has determined that an individual needs rehabilitative services beyond six months, that individual would need to be engaged in core work activities for at least 15 hours per week to get full credit, with the remaining 15 hours spent in rehabilitative services. Similarly, if partial credit is available for a person who works 24 hours per week, then a State could receive that same partial credit if the person was engaged in core work activities for at least 12 hours per week, with the remaining 12 hours spent in rehabilitative services.

This approach is appealing for many reasons. First, it allows states to design a system in which a person can move progressively over time from rehabilitation toward work. Second, it gives states credit for the time and effort they will need to invest to help people move successfully from welfare to work by allowing States to use a range of strategies to help these families. Third, it creates a more realistic structure for individuals with disabilities and addictions who may otherwise fall out of the system either through sanction or discouragement, despite their need for financial support. Finally, this approach is appealing because it is designed to work within the structure of the final TANF reauthorization bill.

I look forward to working with my co-sponsors, Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Rockefeller, and Collins, and with the Chairman of the Finance Committee on these important provisions in the upcoming months, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

I also wish to thank all of the organizations that have expressed support for this bill. I have received support letters from those organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reverse the decline in the number of international students studying at American colleges, universities, and high schools. I am very pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Bingaman, who cares deeply about these issues as I do.

Policies implemented to keep our country safe in the wake of September 11 have had the unintended consequence of dramatically reducing the number of international students studying in the United States. Total international applications to U.S. graduate schools fell 28 percent from fall 2003 to fall 2004, and 54 percent of all English as a Second Language (ESL) programs have reported declines in overall applications at a time where countries such as the U.K., Canada, and Australia are experiencing increases.

Why is this a concern for our country?

From a foreign policy perspective, America needs all the Ambassadors of goodwill we can get. In a world that too often hates Americans because they do not know us, international education represents an opportunity to break down barriers. It is in our local and national interest for the best and brightest foreign students to study in America because these are people who will lead their nations one day. The experience they gain with our democratic system and our values gives them a better understanding of what America is and who Americans are.

My caseworkers in Minnesota have dealt with literally hundreds of student visas cases. One case in particular stands out--that of Humphrey Tusimiirwe, a brilliant student from Uganda who was having difficulty getting his student visa for study at St. Thomas. Fortunately, after several calls to the U.S. Ambassador, Humphrey's story ultimately had a happy ending, and he is going to be part of our panel at the University of Minnesota. But too many other students are barred from coming to study in America, and far too many are choosing to not study in the U.S. and instead go elsewhere.

I have heard from Minnesota's colleges and universities. The presence of international students on campuses gives American students an irreplaceable opportunity to learn about other cultures and points of view. That's why this legislation has the endorsement of the University of Minnesota, the MnSCU student association, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and Rochester Post Bulletin, and others. International education is a $13 billion industry, and foreign students who pay full tuition help keep costs down for American students. In Minnesota alone, international students contribute some $175 million to our economy.

Finally, I think this is an economic competitiveness issue too. Attracting the world's top scientific scholars helps to keep our economy competitive. Too many of the world's best scientists are opting against studying in the U.S. because of the barriers we have imposed. We need the world's best and brightest to continue to do their research here, and to continue to use their talents to improve American innovation and ultimately create American jobs. Many of America's most innovative business leaders and top CEOs came to the U.S. as international students.

At the same time, laws are in place to make sure companies hire American workers first, and my legislation would not change that. That's why I will introduce legislation, the COMPETE Act, that will make sure American students have the math, science, and engineering skills needed to stay competitive.

While the State Department has made some very important strides, such as extending the validity of Visas Mantis security clearances and speeding up their processing time, there are still too many qualified students unable to get visas to study in America, and too many who today are deterred from even applying.

That's why I am pleased once again to join with my friend the Senator from New Mexico in introducing the American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now (ACTION) Act. Our bill calls for a number of steps that would help America regain our place as the top destination for international students, scholars, scientists and exchange visitors.

First, our bill calls for a strategic marketing plan similar to strategies implemented by the U.K., E.U., Canada and Australia to help America regain lost ground in attracting the world's best and brightest. There is a perception around the world that America is no longer a welcoming place, so we need to be deliberate and smart in our efforts to change that view.

The bill calls for more realistic standards for visa evaluations by updating a 50-year old criterion for visa approval and admittance to the United States. Under the so-called 214(b) rule, young people currently need to prove that they have ``essential ties'' to their home countries and no intention of emigrating to the U.S. But in this age of globalization, it is increasingly difficult for a 20-year old to do this. Many have lived and studied in other countries, and some have lost their parents to AIDS. They don't own a house or a business, they don't have spouses or children. Consular officers treat every student as an intending immigrant, and it is exceedingly difficult for a student to prove otherwise.

Our legislation calls for common-sense changes to management of the SEVIS system, which tracks international students and visitors. Under this legislation, the database would be run more effectively, and fees would be collected in a more fair manner.

The bill also sets standards for more timeliness and certainty in the student visa process, upgrading communication between government agencies dealing with student visas and enabling them to identify security risks and clear those who are not a threat more quickly.

I spent time in Minnesota last Friday listening to my constituents' views about this bill and the positive effect it would have on Minnesota colleges and universities. The response was overwhelming. These summits prompted me to add a section to the bill dealing specifically with students who have to return home for family emergencies, and a section to help intensive English programs compete with their counterparts in the U.K. and Australia.

We have often seen that prejudice is bred by isolation. Those who only look at this country through a keyhole can draw all kinds of outrageous conclusions. But exposure and interaction bring people together. Especially in a time when we are burdened with the question, ``Why do they hate us?'' we need to enhance those opportunities for people to see us as we really are. International exchanges present precisely this opportunity.

International education brings too much to our campuses, our communities, our economy and our national security to become another victim of the age of terrorism. If we can take ACTION to reverse the decline now, all Americans will reap the benefits for decades to come.

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

Madam President, I rise to oppose this bill. With an $8.4 trillion national debt, a budget deficit that will exceed $300 billion this year, a looming entitlement crisis, and a mounting alternative minimum tax problem, full repeal of the estate tax at this time is simply not responsible.

We have until 2010 to make decisions about the estate tax. In doing so, time will afford us the opportunity to make more informed choices, with a more complete picture of our Nation's fiscal health.

We are talking about eliminating nearly $1 trillion in Federal revenues here, during a time of war.

Now is not the time to place the interests of a small number of millionaires ahead of millions of working families.

The estate tax is already being gradually phased down under current law. By 2009, only estates valued at more than $7 million per couple-- $3.5 million per individual--will owe any estate tax at all. This means that only 3 of every 1,000 people who die would have an estate large enough to owe any Federal estate taxes.

Permanently eliminating the estate tax would cost $402 billion over the

next 10 years, 2007 to 2016, though it is important to note that this figure only captures the cost of 5 years of full repeal, from 2011 to 2016.

When all costs are included, nearly a trillion dollars will be lost in the first decade following repeal, from 2012 to 2021. Included in this staggering figure is $213 billion in increased interest payments on the national debt.

Federal revenues are already insufficient to fund our Nation's most critical domestic priorities.

I wish things were different, allowing a vote in support of reforming the estate tax to be cast today in good conscience.

Let me be clear. I am no fan of the estate tax. I understand how hard families work to provide opportunities and a better future for their children. Transferring assets from generation to generation motivates families to work even harder. It is unfair to place unreasonable burdens on small businesses and families seeking to provide for future generations.

I am deeply concerned about California's families who own farms and small businesses. Like many of my colleagues, I worry that they may be forced to sell a primary residence just to pay the estate tax. Our laws should not create even more hardship at a time when someone has lost a loved one.

Yet, as we consider estate tax repeal today, our Nation's fiscal outlook and the potential impact of this administration's policies are uncertain. This President has broken with his predecessors by submitting only 5-year budgets.

Why, you might ask? Especially after we were presented with the traditional 10-year numbers during this President's first year in office. The answer is that these tax cuts explode the debt and deficit in the outyears--the end of the 10-year window.

The President's tax cuts have already cost more than $1 trillion, and those enacted will be more than $3 trillion over the next decade.

Republicans just passed another round, with the lion's share once again going to the very wealthy--$50 billion to extend capital gains and dividends tax breaks over 10 years.

The Federal budget deficit will be at least $300 billion this year. The national debt is soaring. And we are at war. Never before have such expansive tax cuts been enacted or continued during a time of war.

Over the next 10 years, the debt is projected to reach nearly $12 trillion. In this year alone, our national debt is slated to increase by $654 billion. More startling is the fact that the national debt is currently more than 66 percent of our gross domestic product, GDP. The total debt equates to roughly $30,000 owed by every American citizen.

When you combine the cost of the tax cuts with spending for the war in Iraq--currently totaling $370 billion--the inevitable result is that the domestic programs that matter most are squeezed.

For example, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget makes significant cuts to programs such as food stamps, cut by $272 million; food assistance for seniors and children, cut by $111 million; COPS, which put over 118,000 police on the streets nationwide, is being cut by more than $407 million, or 15,000 officers nationwide; first responders--within Department of Homeland Security--by $573 million or 25 percent; firefighters--firefighter grant program, within Department of Homeland Security--by $355 million; Job Corps--an education and job training program for youth--by $55 million, resulting in 1,000 fewer at-risk youth being served; mass transit, by $100 million; safe and drug-free schools State grants, by $346 million; and education--the President's signature education program, No Child Left Behind, would be underfunded this year by more than $15 billion and $55.7 billion since it was enacted.

Let me explain. Most of the money the Federal Government outlays in a given year is currently not controllable. It is spent on what are called entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits. If you are entitled to these benefits, you get them.

And if you add interest on the debt--nearly $400 billion in 2006-- that is about 60 percent of everything spent in a given year. So that leaves 40 percent, half of which is the defense budget and half is everything else.

There is a war going on, so it is very difficult to cut defense spending.

So while a select few are benefiting from massive tax breaks, budget cuts must be made--to the programs many Americans rely upon--to prevent uncontainable deficits.

There is a fundamental shift taking place. Republicans have become the profligate spenders, while Democrats have become the deficit hawks.

Americans deserve more responsible leadership. Leadership is about planning for the future and making the difficult decisions that ensure economic stability for our children and their grandchildren.

With the threatening fiscal demands of baby boomers retiring and the pending insolvency of Medicare in less than two decades, repealing the estate tax today would be inconceivably shortsighted.

I urge my colleagues to employ sensible leadership and understand the responsibilities we have to uphold. We have a responsibility to working families, veterans, senior citizens, children, and low-income communities.

No one will deny that this issue needs to be revisited in the coming years. We must adopt a balanced estate tax compromise, while holding the line on spending in order to restore a program of fiscal sanity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect small businesses and family farms, without unreasonably jeopardizing our Nation's financial well-being and our ability to help those who need Congress most.

In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to do what they know is right: encourage a more responsible fiscal course and stand in opposition to full repeal of the estate tax at this time. This is the wrong policy at the wrong time.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005 along with Senator Bill Nelson. This bipartisan legislation will make the death tax a thing of the past.

As we all know, Congress, working with President Bush, enacted bipartisan legislation in 2001 to phase out and eventually repeal the death tax in 2010. Unfortunately, because we did not have the 60 votes we needed to avoid a filibuster by opponents of the cuts, we could not make the repeal permanent. Rather, under Senate rules, the cuts could only be extended for the term of the budget: 10 years. As a consequence, the death tax springs back to life in 2011, at its old rate of up to 60 percent and at its old exemption level of only $1 million. Senator Nelson and I understand that this tax structure is simply unworkable for families and family businesses. We agree that the best solution is to simply get rid of the death tax once and for all. That's why we are introducing legislation today to make death tax repeal permanent.

Senator Nelson and I are joined in this effort by Senators Allard, Allen, Burns, Inhofe, Talent, and Thune, and we have the full support of President Bush, who once again included permanent repeal of the death tax in his Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposal.

The death tax is an unfair, inefficient, economically unsound and, frankly, an immoral tax that should be removed from the tax code. A recent survey found that 58 percent of Americans believe the death tax is ``completely unfair.'' In contrast, only 10 percent of those surveyed said the same about sales taxes. Moreover, this view is shared by Americans across income levels and political parties: 61 percent of Americans making less than $30,000 a year believe the death tax is ``completely unfair''; 89 percent of respondents who supported President Bush in the last election and 71 percent of respondents who supported his opponent in the last election label the death tax somewhat or very ``unfair.''

And the death tax is unfair, first of all, to the decedent and to his or her heirs. We are talking about people who work hard throughout their lives, perhaps start businesses, or perhaps buy homes in fast- growing metropolitan areas where real estate values are skyrocketing. Or it could be such a person owns a farm or just works hard in a company owned by others, but that person saves and invests and eventually accumulates a small but respectable nest egg. As you can see, the tax reaches far more than the ``ultra-rich,'' its intended targets when it was first imposed. The American dream is to be able to leave these assets to one's children so that they might enjoy a better life than their parents. It is simply unfair and immoral for the government to take more than half of these assets at death.

Americans understand that the death tax is unfair because it falls on families when they have the least ability to make significant economic decisions: at the time they lose a loved one. Further, it is unfair because expensive tax planning can significantly ease the effect of the death tax. If you have the money to hire the right lawyer, buy the large insurance policies that are needed, and do the proper planning, your family can be spared much of the financial pain caused by the death tax. If, on the other hand, you die without warning or if you have an unexpectedly large estate due to increased property values and prudent investments, you are caught paying a larger tax. Taxes required as a result of intentional, planned economic decisions are one thing; taxes on an untimely death are quite another.

Not only is the death tax unfair; it hurts economic growth. The death tax creates a disincentive to build a family farm, ranch, or other business with the goal of passing it on to one's children. In some cases, it makes more sense for a family business to be sold when the owner retires, since the taxes, primarily capital gains taxes, are going to be much lower if the assets are sold while the owner is still alive. Further, planning for the death tax makes it harder to expand a family business because needed resources are spent on attorneys and life insurance instead of growing the business. As much is spent each year on such ``avoidance planning'' as is collected in death taxes by the government.

The death tax also hurts economic growth by discouraging savings and investment. Whether it falls on a family business built through hard work or on a family with a home and a lifetime of investments in 401(k) and IRAs thanks to prudent living, it claims nearly half of an estate over the unified credit amount ($1.5 million in 2005) for the federal government. Such confiscatory tax rates give people little incentive to save and invest. What's more, the American people understand that the death tax represents multiple levels of taxation. Fully 80 percent of those in a recent survey said that the tax represents an ``extreme'' form of ``triple taxation.''

The death tax has a broader economic reach than to just those immediately hit with the tax. Suppose a small business employs 25, maybe 30 people, all of whom rely on the business for their livelihood, health insurance, and retirement savings. The entrepreneur's heirs may not have enough cash to pay the applicable death tax, so they may be forced to liquidate the business. Depending on who buys the assets and what is done with them, the employees may now have to find other jobs. Moreover, all of the companies that sold items to or bought items from this business might need to find other suppliers or customers, leaving a hole in the economy. According to the IRS ``Statistics of Income,'' estate and gift taxes only brought in about $22.8 billion in fiscal year 2003 barely more than one percent of all gross tax collections by the Treasury Department. For such a small amount of revenue, the death tax inflicts a disproportionately large amount of damage on the economy.

One of the most interesting statements about the death tax was made by Edward J. McCaffrey, a law professor from the University of Southern California and self-described liberal, in testimony before Congress several years back. He said, ``Polls and practices show that we like sin taxes, such as on alcohol and cigarettes. . . . The estate tax is an anti-sin, or a virtue, tax. It is a tax on work and savings without consumption, on thrift, on long term savings.''

I urge Congress to act this year to end this tax on virtue, work, savings, job creation and the American dream, and to end it permanently.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect public health and the environment by preventing chemicals from leaking out of underground storage tanks and thereafter contaminating drinking water supplies and nearby communities. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.

Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and economic growth.

There are approximately 670,000 underground storage tanks in the United States, and there have been more than 445,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of mid-2003. Over 35 States report that leaking underground storage tanks are one of the top threats to their drinking water sources. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 States and in 29 States has contaminated drinking water. Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination nationwide.

Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills. Unfortunately, the pace of cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks is 20 percent below the historic average. Our Nation faces an estimated 94,000 to 150,000 additional cleanups over the next 10 years--at a cost of $12 billion to $19 billion.

The best, most commonsense solution to stop leaking underground storage tanks from threatening public health is to prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in California--or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 were double walled.

But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population relies on groundwater for their drinking water, including almost 100 percent in rural areas. The time to prevent contamination is now.

We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Clinton in introducing the Count Every Vote Act of 2005.

The 2000 election exposed a number of serious problems with the accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result of those irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively disenfrachised and thus deprived of one of our most fundamental rights.

In the 2004 election, we again saw serious irregularities when voters across this country went to the polls to cast their votes. From untrustworthy electronic voting machines, to partisan secretaries of state, to outrageously long lines at the polls, the election system was far from what voters are entitled to have.

At Kenyon College in Ohio, for example, voters were made to wait in line until nearly 4 a.m. to vote because there were only two machines for 1,300 voters. In the Columbus area alone, an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters left

polling places, out of frustration, without having voted. In Cleveland, thousands of provisional ballots were disqualified after poll workers gave faulty instructions to voters.

Because of these irregularities--as well as voting irregularities in many other places--I joined Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in objecting to the certification of the Ohio electoral votes on January 7, 2005. I did this to cast the light of truth on a flawed system that must be fixed now. Americans deserve a system where every vote is counted and can be verified. And, Congress must do more to give confidence to all of our people that their votes matter.

In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which took important steps toward electoral reform. Since the enactment of HAVA, however, concerns have been raised about the security of voting machines and the inability of the majority of voters who may use these machines to be able to adequately verify their vote and to ensure that the vote they intended was both cast and counted. In addition, many other problems in our Federal election system--including long wait times in which to vote, the erroneous purging of voters, voter suppression and intimidation, and unequal access to the voting process--remain.

Last year, I sponsored legislation to address some of these issues. I also joined Senator Clinton and former Senator Bob Graham in introducing an election reform bill. I am pleased to again join Senator Clinton today to introduce the Count Every Vote Act of 2005--the CEVA Voting Act. It requires voting machines to have a voter-verified paper trail for use by all individuals, including language minority voters, illiterate voters, and voters with disabilities; and it mandates national standards in the registration of voters and the counting of provisional ballots. All provisions of this legislation are to be in effect no later than the November 2006 Federal election.

Mr. President, in a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in the results. HAVA was a good first step. The CEVA Voting Act is the next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.