[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6408-S6415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              DEATH TAX ELIMINATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 608, H.R. 8, a bill to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase out the estate and 
     gift taxes over a 10-year period:
         Trent Lott, Bill Roth, Charles Grassley, Larry E. Craig, 
           Chuck Hagel, Jeff Sessions, Pete Domenici, Strom 
           Thurmond, Jon Kyl, Thad Cochran, Jim Bunning, Craig 
           Thomas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Susan M. Collins, Don 
           Nickles, and Wayne Allard.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 8, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to phase out the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Hollings
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 99, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.


                       Unanimous-Consent Requests

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of the Interior appropriations bill, the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of the China PNTR legislation and that the first 
amendment in order to the bill be Senator Thompson's China sanctions 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, obviously, 
the PNTR bill is an extremely important bill. This body understands 
that. Certainly those of us on this side of the aisle who have been the 
force for expanding trade in this world, who have been basically the 
majority vote of things the President has wished to do--for example, on 
the African free trade agreement and on NAFTA, two areas where it was 
really our side of the aisle that carried the ball for the 
administration, as they tried to open our trade opportunities across 
the world--are strongly supportive of the concept of PNTR.
  But there is still a fair amount of work that has to be done before 
we can bring it to the floor. Specifically, as was alluded to, there is 
the Thompson amendment, which would be nice to be able to deal with 
independent of PNTR. There are also other issues which we are going to 
have to address before the PNTR is ripe for consideration.
  So at this point I would have to object, although it is clearly the 
intention of our side of the aisle to bring up the PNTR issue and to 
hopefully pass it, as we did with NAFTA and as we did with the African 
free trade agreement. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I hope the majority side will not object. 
PNTR transcends all other issues that are before the Senate. It is an 
international issue. It is a public policy, a foreign policy issue, one 
which clearly falls in the category of politics stopping at the water's 
edge.
  This measure is monumental in its implications. It must pass. The 
sooner it passes, the better. Delay is danger. We all know that our 
relations with China are extremely important but also tenuous. The more 
this issue is delayed, the more likely it is that some untoward, 
unanticipated, unexpected event might occur which would deteriorate 
relations between our two countries and make it more difficult to pass 
a very needed piece of legislation.
  I understand the majority's concern about scheduling, about 
appropriations bills, about other matters. But I strongly urge the 
majority party and the leader of the majority party, who correctly sets 
the schedule, to put politics beyond this, to put policy, public 
interest, and national security above all the other concerns that are 
legitimate here in the Senate because once PNTR is set for a vote this 
month, I predict that the logjam will break. It will be easier then to 
take up other measures.
  I very strongly urge the Senator from New Hampshire to pass the word 
on to the majority leader, and others, of the importance of bringing 
this bill up in July--this month, a date certain--so we can begin to 
establish a relatively comprehensive and solid relationship with the 
country that is going to be probably one of the most important 
countries that this country is going to be dealing with in this next 
century. It is absolutely critical.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished senior 
Senator from Montana for making the point again, with his unanimous 
consent request this morning, that we are simply asking for a date 
certain.
  I am concerned that this issue, as was discussed and reported 
yesterday, could slip into September. If it slips into September, it 
might not be considered at all. In September there will be little 
opportunity to confront what we know is going to be a difficult 
challenge for us in terms of procedural factors in the consideration of 
this legislation.
  So I have a very deep concern about this legislation slipping. This 
needs to be done this month. It ought to be done this week. We are 
going to continue to press for its consideration. I applaud the Senator 
from Montana in his willingness to do it.
  There is an array of legislation that has been left undone. We will 
call attention to those issues as often as we can to encourage and to 
welcome the involvement and participation on the other side.
  Another issue is the H-1B bill. It has been languishing now for a 
long period of time. I have expressed a willingness to cut down the 
amendments that we

[[Page S6409]]

know are pending on the H-1B bill from the scores, maybe even over 100 
amendments that could be offered to 10 amendments with time limits--
with time limits. We would be willing to consider the H-1B bill with a 
time limit on each amendment, taking it up as soon as possible, in an 
effort to get that legislation passed as well. For whatever reason, the 
majority has continued to refuse to allow us consideration of the H-1B 
legislation as well.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights, the prescription drug bill, the minimum 
wage bill, education amendments, the juvenile justice legislation--
there is a legislative landfill, that gets larger and larger, in large 
measure because of the reluctance and outright opposition on the part 
of some of our colleagues on the other side to deal with these issues 
in a constructive manner in order that we may complete them yet this 
year.
  Mr. DASCHLE. So, Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent that 
upon the disposition of the Interior appropriations bill, the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of S. 2045, the H-1B visa bill, that it be 
considered under the following time agreement: One managers' amendment; 
that there be 10 relevant amendments per each leader in order to the 
bill; that relevant amendments shall include those related to H-1B, 
technology-related job training, education and access, and/or 
immigration; that debate on those amendments shall be limited to 30 
minutes, equally divided in the usual form, and that relevant second-
degree amendments be in order; that upon the disposition of the 
amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on final 
passage.
  The unanimous consent request would allow us to complete the H-1B 
bill in one day--one day. So I am hoping our colleagues will agree to 
this. I ask that unanimous consent at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the H-1B 
bill happens to be a priority of this side of the aisle. I would be 
happy to move to this if we could move to the H-1B bill. Unfortunately, 
the Democratic leader isn't proposing that we move to the H-1B bill. 
What the Democratic leader is proposing is that we move to an 
extraneous agenda attached to the H-1B bill, that we bring to this bill 
debate on all sorts of issues which have no relevance to H-1B. In fact, 
we have offered, on this side of the aisle, to bring up the H-1B bill 
with relevant amendments. That has not been accepted by the other side 
of the aisle.
  We are continuing to be agreeable to bringing up the H-1B bill with 
relevant amendments. There is no question but that we should pass the 
H-1B bill. I do sense a touch of crocodile tears coming from the other 
side of the aisle because, as a practical matter, almost all the bills 
that are listed as being held up, such as the education bill--the PNTR 
is a little different class, but the H-1B bill, for sure--are being 
held up not because of the underlying bill, not because the underlying 
issue is in contest as to whether or not we should take it up--we are 
perfectly willing to take up those issues on this side of the aisle and 
have propounded a series of unanimous consent requests to accomplish 
exactly that--but it is because there is a whole set of other agenda 
items, which the Democratic leader has a right to and desires to bring 
up, but he cannot bring them up on those bills and then claim he is 
bringing up those bills, because he is not bringing up those bills; 
what he is bringing up is those bills plus an agenda as long as my arm 
of political issues that they wish to posture on for the next election.
  If he wishes to bring up the H-1B bill with three relevant 
amendments, or even five relevant amendments, on each side, we would be 
happy to accept that type of approach.
  I have to object to the present proposal, but I would be happy to 
propound a unanimous consent which limits discussion to relevant 
amendments, if the Democratic leader is willing to pursue a course of 
bringing up H-1B with relevant amendments. On the proposal as laid out 
by the Democratic leader, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader has the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to respond, I don't know what would be 
nonrelevant about technology-related job training. Is that relevant to 
H-1B? Of course, it is. I don't know what would be nonrelevant about 
technology-related education amendments. What could be nonrelevant 
about a technology-related education and access amendments? What is 
nonrelevant about immigration amendments? We are talking about the 
possibility of allowing 200,000 new immigrants to enter our country to 
work. We want to offer amendments we feel are relevant to H-1B, and we 
are not allowed.
  Senators want to be Senators. In the Senate, we offer amendments to 
bills. We want to get this legislation passed as well. In the true 
tradition of the Senate, we ought to be able to offer amendments, 
relevant amendments.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
that is our position.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire 
for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator's position is he is willing to allow 
relevant amendments, then we can develop a unanimous consent request 
which says ``relevant amendments.'' Is that the Senator's position? The 
Senator just used the world ``relevant'' three times to describe the 
amendments he would propound. Therefore, it should not be a problem for 
the Senator to offer relevant amendments.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Does the Senator from New Hampshire not think these 
issues are relevant?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I always allow the Parliamentarian to 
determine relevancy, as the Democratic leader has always allowed the 
Parliamentarian to determine relevancy. That is why, when we use the 
term ``relevant,'' if we both agree on the term ``relevant,'' let's put 
it in the unanimous consent request and move forward.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am more than happy to deal with relevant amendments. 
Of course, as the Senator from New Hampshire knows, according to the 
strict definition of the word ``relevance,'' our amendments would have 
to be related specifically to H-1B. He is unwilling to talk about 
relevant amendments as we understand it in the English language. Under 
the common understanding of the English language, ``relevance'' would 
allow the consideration of an immigration-related amendment during the 
H-1B debate because the H-1B bill is an immigration bill. It would 
allow technology-related education amendments to be considered relevant 
to the H-1B bill in this context. Certainly, technology-related job 
training amendments would be ``relevant'' under our common 
understanding of that term, but you can hide behind those specific 
defenses if you like. Again, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it the position of the Senator that the Senate does not 
function under the English language?
  Mr. DASCHLE. It is the position of this Senator that the term 
``relevant'' fits the amendments that we have attempted to offer. Of 
course, the reason why our colleagues don't want to deal with these 
issues is not because they are not relevant. It is because they don't 
want to vote on immigration issues. They don't want to vote on 
education. They don't want to vote on technology-related job training. 
They have a take-it-or-leave-it approach to consideration of important 
legislation such as this.
  We can go back to the time when they were in the minority. Relevance 
was never a question then for them. Then relevance was something they 
considered and accorded the right of every Senator, just as we are now 
advocating. We are talking about relevance. We are talking about the 
importance of relevant amendments.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In response to the Senator, one of the amendments is to 
try to make sure that in the future there is going to be adequate 
training so we are not going to have to offer these jobs necessarily to 
immigrants, but they would be available to Americans who do not have 
those skills. To make an argument on the floor of the Senate that we 
are going to deny American workers the kind of training

[[Page S6410]]

to get these high-paying jobs and participate in the expanding economy 
is just preposterous. That evidently is what the Senator from New 
Hampshire is doing. That is one of the key amendments that has been 
objected to by the Republicans.
  This is what we are trying to do, to have training programs that are 
basically structured or organized, or education in the computer 
sciences through the National Science Foundation, through existing 
training programs so that we are not duplicating other training 
programs. It has been objected to.
  I commend our leader. These are common sense amendments to an issue 
which can mean a great deal in an expanding economy and can make a 
great difference to American workers.
  I cannot understand--I do understand because I think the Senator has 
been correct--why our Republican friends are constantly objecting to 
common sense measures which are absolutely relevant and absolutely 
essential in terms of the H-1B issue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. He 
said it so eloquently. This is a relevance issue. Whether or not we 
continue to allow immigrants who come in to meet certain skill demands 
in this country is directly relevant to whether or not we are going to 
have an educated workforce. It is directly relevant to whether or not 
we are going to put the resources forward to train American workers in 
order to ensure that we might someday fill these jobs with workers from 
this country. If that is not relevant, I really don't know what is.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from South Dakota 
yielding. Since the Senator from New Hampshire wants to discuss the 
meaning of the term ``relevant,'' as the Senator from New Hampshire 
knows, the rules of the Senate have words that are used and interpreted 
in very narrow and unique ways. The term ``relevant'' has a very narrow 
meaning here in the Senate by which we make a judgment about which 
amendments might be in order. But the term ``relevant'' is not related 
to common sense, in the Senate at least.
  Let me give an example. On the issue we were talking about this 
morning, the estate tax repeal proposed by our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans would benefit to 
the tune of $250 billion in 10 years. Now, if one says, as they 
propose, let's give a $250 billion tax exemption to the 400 wealthiest 
Americans as identified in Forbes magazine, and if we say, we have 
another idea for that tax repeal--instead of giving that tax relief to 
the 400 wealthiest Americans, let us instead give it to middle-income 
families with an enlarged tax credit for tuition so they can send their 
kids to college; or let us widen the 15-percent bracket to enable more 
families to take advantage of that low rate; or let us enact a 
prescription drug benefit for people who need prescription drug 
coverage--in short, if we propose a different way to use that revenue 
that in our view would be more effective and more important, we are 
told that is not relevant. You can't offer that, we hear. That is not 
relevant.
  Of course it is relevant. My colleague just talked about common 
sense. Someone once described common sense as genius dressed in work 
clothes. There is no common sense on the issue of relevancy with 
respect to the Senate rules. Yet that is exactly the shield behind 
which they want to hide on these issues.

  We have a right to offer amendments. We have a right to offer 
amendments that relate to the subject at hand. The proposal by the 
majority side is to prevent us from that opportunity. Our reaction to 
that is, ``Nonsense.'' We have a right to do that. We have an absolute 
right to do that, as Members of the Senate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, let me end by 
saying again, I am disappointed.
  I note the Senator from New Hampshire offered a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution relating to Social Security on the Commerce-State-Justice 
bill in the last Congress. There was no concern then about whether it 
was relevant or not. Our distinguished majority leader offered an 
amendment relating to prayer in schools and at memorial services on the 
juvenile justice bill last year. Again, there was no concern about 
relevance. Senator Helms offered an amendment that some of us may 
recall having to do with a patent for the Daughters of the Confederacy 
on the community service bill. He also offered a Lithuanian 
independence resolution on the Clean Air Act. Senator Nickles offered 
an amendment to require a supermajority for tax increases on the 
unemployment insurance extension. Senator Roth has offered tax cuts on 
appropriations bills.
  There is a lot of interesting history having to do with relevance and 
amendments that may or may not pertain directly to the bill under 
Senate consideration. That is all we are asking.
  What is even more noteworthy is the fact that we are willing to limit 
ourselves to 10 amendments with time limits. You can't do much better 
than that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we 
could accommodate our distinguished colleagues in the past when they 
have offered amendments, certainly they should accommodate us. That is 
why the relevancy issue is so important here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the issue being debated and brought forward 
by the minority leader was that he wanted to take up and discuss H-1B. 
The presentation was for the purpose, at least formally it appeared, of 
taking up the H-1B issue. We are willing to take up the H-1B issue. And 
we are willing to do it with relevant amendments. Now, the other side 
says that is not the English language and it is not common sense to use 
the term ``relevant.'' That term has been used for the past 200 years 
in this body, and I think it is reasonable to continue to use it.

  On a number of occasions, we have presented unanimous consent 
requests asking that we be allowed to take up the H-1B legislation with 
relevant amendments. In fact, the Democratic leader said specifically 
that the amendments he was talking about would be relevant. He used the 
term ``relevant.'' I understand that was more in the context of not 
necessarily the Senate, but in any event he used the term ``relevant.''
  Right now, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after 
consultation with the Democratic leader, to proceed to Calendar No. 
490, S. 2045, the H-1B legislation, and it be considered under the 
following limitations:
  Three relevant amendments per each leader in order to the bill; No 
other amendments in order other than second-degree amendments which are 
relevant to the first-degree amendments.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the 
above amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage, with no intervening action or debate.
  The purpose of this unanimous consent request is to bring up the H-1B 
visa issue, which I believe should be brought to the floor with 
relevant amendments.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have 
certainly made clear that in 1 day we would totally complete the debate 
on this legislation. Under the unanimous consent agreement we have 
offered, in 1 day we would be completed with H-1B. In fact, in the time 
we have spent procedurally trying to get this done, we would have 
already finished two amendments.
  I think we would be much better off treating the Senate as the 
Senate. My friend from New Hampshire said for 200 years there has been 
a meaning of ``relevance'' in the Senate. Of course, that is true. It 
has changed under different precedents that have been set, but we think 
the one thing that has not changed--but they are trying very hard to 
change it--is how debate proceeds in the Senate. We are willing to even 
change how we feel we should proceed. We believe H-1B should be brought 
up and that debate should be completed on it. We would be through with 
that probably in 2 days. We are willing to cut that back to 1 day. I 
respectfully say that I object and I offer again, without restating it, 
the unanimous consent request.

[[Page S6411]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from New 
Hampshire has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest to my friend from New Hampshire 
that he strongly consider the agreement we have offered--that H-1B be 
brought up and debate be completed in 1 day. That is what we should do. 
It would be better for the Senate and for the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate on the motion to proceed on the bill 
under cloture, with 30 hours of debate for consideration.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend this, without his losing the 
floor. There are a number of Senators here to speak postcloture and 
debate the motion to proceed. Perhaps, we can agree on some order that 
people could speak. On your side, you have seven Senators and we have 
about the same number. Each person is entitled to 1 hour. People on our 
side would be willing--with the exception of one Senator--to take 30 
minutes. I wonder if it is agreeable.
  Mr. ROTH. Thirty minutes a person?
  Mr. REID. Yes, instead of the 1 hour to which they are entitled. I 
wonder if you would agree to alternate back and forth--the majority and 
minority.
  Mr. ROTH. I think we can agree to alternate back and forth; but as to 
who, at this time, we are not certain in what order. I will go ahead, 
and why don't we have some informal discussions to see how we proceed 
after that?
  Mr. REID. That is appropriate. In the meantime, our people will 
speak.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the majority 
leader's motion to proceed to H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 
2000, which overwhelmingly passed in the House by a vote of 279-136. As 
I pointed out before, that vote of 279 included 65 Democrats. So it 
was, indeed, a bipartisan vote in support of this legislation.
  Before going into the details of the legislation, I'd like to talk 
about the rationale for this bill and the debate around it.
  Some ask why are we concerned about the death tax. Only 2 percent of 
estates pay the tax. Many of those taxpayers have the resources to 
minimize the tax. Even if they have to pay the tax at rates approaching 
60 percent, the balance of the estate is available for the 
beneficiaries. The other 98 percent of estates need not worry about it. 
Those in this position also argue that the revenue raised by the estate 
tax is better spent on Federal programs than kept by the children.
  I guess it all depends on your perspective. The opponents of death 
tax repeal look at an estate as a thing, such as money or property, 
detached from the person that created it. From their view, it is a 
valuable resource for an ever-expanding Federal Government.
  There is another view. If you look behind the statistics and revenue 
figures, you will see an estate as something that represents a lifetime 
of actions by the individuals and families. Every day a person makes 
decisions to sacrifice, work harder, and save. And every day these 
hardworking families are taxed on what they earn. Over a lifetime, this 
daily dedication adds up. It is natural that the families who created 
the wealth, by a lifetime of working hard and paying taxes, would want 
the benefit of their work to go to their families. That is, to stay 
within the family rather than be broken up and sent to Washington.
  I take this latter view. Coming from a small state, like Delaware, I 
meet a lot of small business people and farmers. Everybody knows how 
hard these folks work, and if they are successful, they are in the 
position to pass along a family business or farm to their families. The 
death tax is a serious obstacle to these family farmers and small 
business people. Not only is a major portion of their hard work taken 
by the Federal Government, and spent here in Washington, DC, but the 
need for cash to pay the tax often ends up causing a sale of the farm 
or small business.
  It is this fundamental unfairness, with particular grief inflicted on 
family farms and small business at the worst possible time, that, I 
believe, has resulted in bipartisan support for repealing the death 
tax. Nine Senate Democrats and 65 House Democrats, better than 20% of 
the Democratic caucuses of each body, support repeal of the death tax.
  You're going to hear that family farmers and small businesses are 
already protected from the current death tax. Thanks to the Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 1997, we, on this side of the aisle, won a hard fought 
concession for estate and gift tax relief. Under that legislation, a 
family farm or small business couple can shield up to $2.6 million, on 
a phased in basis, from the death tax. Since that legislation became 
law, however, I have heard that the provision is technically and 
practically difficult for family farmers and small businesses to use. 
It seems that the better and simpler approach is to rid our family 
farmers and small businesses of the burden of this tax.
  I'd like to turn to the bill before us.
  The bill is substantially similar to the estate tax provisions in the 
tax bill that was vetoed by the President last year. Some may ask why 
this House bill did not come through the Finance Committee. The reason 
is that the bill holds to the estate tax provisions the House and 
Senate agreed to last year. Since the Finance Committee has already 
debated and approved these provisions and we have negotiated these 
provisions with the House, I saw no need to process the bill in the 
committee.
  There are really two time periods to which the bill applies. In the 
first period, generally from 2001 to 2009, estate tax relief is 
provided on several fronts. In the second period, beginning in 2010, 
the whole estate and gift tax regime is repealed.
  During the first part, from 2001 to 2010, the estate and gift tax 
rates are reduced on both the high end and low end. On the low end, 
currently, there is a unified credit that applies to the first $675,000 
of an estate. That amount is scheduled to rise to $1 million in 2006.
  While current law provides some relief for the smallest estates, for 
modest estates, those above the credit amount, a high tax rate applies. 
For example, now a decedent's estate of $750,000 faces a tax rate of 37 
percent on each dollar over the credit amount. Keep in mind that's 
where the rate starts. For larger estates, the rates can be as high as 
60 percent.
  For the lower-end estates, the bill converts the unified credit to an 
exemption. What this means is that estates right above the unified 
credit amount, will face tax rates starting at 18 percent rather than 
37 percent. In other words for modest size estates, this bill cuts the 
tax rate in half.
  For the larger estates, some now facing marginal rates as high as 60 
percent, the bill includes a phased in rate cut. The rates are reduced 
from the current regime, with its highest rate of 60 percent, down to a 
top rate of 40.5 percent for the highest end estates. Keep in mind that 
the base of the tax is property, not income, and the rate is still 
above the highest income tax rate of 39.6 percent.
  Prior to full repeal in 2010, the bill would also expand the estate 
tax rules for conservation easements to encourage conservation. In 
addition, the bill provides some simplification measures for the 
generation skipping transfer tax.
  In 2010, the whole estate and gift tax regime is repealed. At the 
same time, a carryover basis regime is put in place instead of the 
current law step up in basis. This means that all taxable estates--
again, I want to emphasize the words ``taxable estates''--that now 
enjoy a step up in basis will be subject to carryover basis. Carryover 
basis simply means that the beneficiary of the estate's property 
receives the same basis as the decedent. For example, if a decedent 
purchased a farm for $100,000 and the farm was worth $2,000,000 at 
death, the tax basis in the hands of the heirs would be $100,000. The 
step in basis is retained for all estates in an amount of up to $1.3 
million per estate. In addition, transfers to a surviving spouse would 
receive an additional step up in the amount of $3 million.
  The House passed the bill on a bipartisan basis with 65 Democrats 
voting in favor of repeal of the estate and gift taxes. Now is the 
Senate's opportunity to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis and send 
it to the President. It is my understanding this will be the only 
chance this year that we will have to pass this bill and repeal estate 
and gift taxes. If we fail, the bill dies. If we

[[Page S6412]]

come together and vote in favor of the House bill--estate tax repeal 
that the Congress passed last year--it will go directly to the 
President for his signature.
  Our family owned businesses and farms must not be denied this relief. 
This should not be a partisan issue.
  Unfortunately, the White House has indicated its opposition to repeal 
of estate and gift taxes and has promised to veto this bill. With 
roughly $2 trillion of estimated non-Social Security surpluses over the 
next 10 years, I believe the approximately $105 billion cost of 
repealing estate and gift taxes to be well within reason--it is only 
about 5 percent of the projected budget surplus.
  Other than being a money grab--estate and gift taxes do not serve any 
legitimate purpose. They certainly don't keep people from dying.
  Taxpayers are taxed on their earnings during their lives at least 
once. Our nation has been built on the notion that anyone who works 
hard has the opportunity to succeed and create wealth. The estate and 
gift taxes are a disincentive to succeed and should be eliminated. It 
is the right thing to do, and it is the right thing to do now.
  It has been said that there are only two certainties: death and 
taxes. The two are bad enough, but leave it to the Federal Government 
to find a way to make them worse by adding them together. This is 
probably the worst example of adding insult to injury ever devised. Yet 
Washington perpetuates over and over again on hard working families who 
have already paid taxes every day they have worked.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the discussion 
by the Senator from Delaware. This is an issue brought to the floor of 
the Senate by those folks who believe that the estate tax ought to be 
repealed over the next 10 years--that it ought to be phased in and 
repealed completely.  They call it a death tax.

  There are some things we agree with and other things on which we 
don't agree. Let me discuss an area of agreement. I think most Members 
of Congress believe the estate tax ought to be reformed in a manner 
that prevents a small business or family farm that is being passed from 
the parents to the children from having some sort of crippling estate 
tax apply to that transfer. I think almost all Members agree that 
should not happen. We want to encourage the transfer of a family farm 
and a small business to the children. We want to encourage parents 
giving their family farm or small business to their children to operate 
and keep that small business open. To do that, we ought to provide a 
specific exemption for family farms and small businesses. We provide 
such an exemption now in current law, but it is not high enough. We 
ought to make it high enough so no family farm or small business gets 
caught in this web.
  I propose $10 million. In fact, I cosponsored a piece of legislation 
authored by the Senator from Oklahoma a couple of years ago that had a 
$10 million ceiling in it with respect to the estate tax applied to a 
family farm or small business. We can increase the exemption so as to 
make sure no one has to worry about the interruption of the operation 
of a farm or small business. That is not rocket science. We can do 
that.
  That is not the issue here. We want to offer an amendment to do that. 
If we ever get the estate tax repeal bill on the floor, we will offer 
an amendment that would say, ``Let's not repeal it; let's instead 
provide a substantial increase in the exemption so family farms and 
small businesses are not hit with an estate tax.'' So that question is 
off the table.
  The question now is, will some sort of estate tax remain? In the 
newspaper this morning there is a story about a fellow worth about $900 
million, a big investor-type from New York. I will not use his name. He 
is using his personal money to spend $20 million on television 
advertising between now and the November election on the issue of 
education, particularly the issue of vouchers with respect to 
education.
  It is his right to do that. Here is a person who amassed a fortune of 
$900 million, according to the newspaper, a terrific amount of money. 
He is just short of a billionaire. If that person at some point should 
die--and of course, everyone does--and that person's son or daughter 
gets an inheritance of $500 million because of the estate tax, who will 
stand on the floor and say shame on Congress for taking away part of 
that estate through an estate tax.
  The question is, Are there some in this country at the upper scale of 
income and wealth whom we should expect to be able to pay an estate 
tax? They have lived in this wonderful country, enjoyed the bounty of 
being an American, been able to become a millionaire, a billionaire. 
The wealthiest 400 people, according to Forbes magazine, would get a 
$250 billion tax windfall in estate tax reductions under the proposal 
for complete repeal. There were 309 billionaires in the United States 
in 1999. More than one half of the billionaires in the world live in 
the United States. That is not a bad thing. That is a good thing. That 
is wonderful. What a great economy. What a great place to live and work 
and invest.
  However, we have in this country a tax on estates. The majority has 
proposed eliminating the tax altogether, repealing it completely. 
According to the Treasury Department, when fully phased in, in the 
second 10 years, this would reduce federal revenues by $750 billion. We 
on the other hand have proposed to make changes in the estate tax to 
provide a sufficient exemption so that no family farm or small business 
is caught in the web of estate taxes. But we also believe that we ought 
to retain the revenue from some of the largest estates currently taxed 
in order to evaluate other possible uses for that revenue.
  Incidentally, the motion to proceed to this is a debate about 
proceeding to this or something else. Is total repeal of the estate tax 
the only thing that represents a priority in Congress? How else might 
we use this money, $250 billion, that under the present proposal would 
go to the wealthiest 400 people in our country? How else might we use 
that $250 billion? What about giving it to working families in the form 
of a tax break, an increased tax credit for college tuition to help 
parents send their kids to school?
  That seems reasonable to me. Or what about the possibility of using 
part of it to help pay down the Federal debt? During tough times, if we 
have run the Federal debt up to $5.7 trillion, how about during good 
times paying it down again? Perhaps we could use part of this revenue 
to pay down the debt. Or what about the proposition to use part of this 
revenue to provide a prescription drug benefit for those who are on 
Medicare? Those Americans who reach their senior years and have the 
lowest incomes of their lives are now discovering that the miracle 
drugs they need to extend and improve their lives are not available to 
them all too often because they cannot afford them. The drugs are 
priced out of reach.
  Senior citizens have told me in hearings that when they go to the 
grocery store they go to the back of the store first because that is 
where they sell the prescription drugs. That is where the pharmacy is. 
They must go to the back of the grocery store to buy their prescription 
drugs to deal with their diabetes and their heart trouble and arthritis 
because only then will they know, after they have paid for the 
prescription drugs they need, only then will they know how much money 
they have to buy food. Only then will they know how much money they 
have left to eat.
  What about using some of that estate tax revenue to provide a 
prescription drug benefit for the Medicare program rather than $250 
billion for the richest 400 Americans?
  The majority party has said: We intend to demand the repeal of the 
estate tax by bringing a bill to the floor, and we don't want to mess 
around with your amendments. In fact, the narrow crevice here in the 
Senate on relevancy would say it is not relevant for my colleague, the 
Senator from Illinois, to offer an amendment and say we are debating 
the repeal of $250 billion of tax obligation to the wealthiest 400 
Americans, so I have another idea on what we ought to do with that $250 
billion. I propose we use it to provide a prescription drug benefit in 
the Medicare program. It would only require part of that revenue. But 
that is his idea.

[[Page S6413]]

  Under the narrow rules of the Senate, the majority says that is not 
relevant. We are not within the relevancy rules of the Senate, so we 
have no right to offer that idea. We have no right to offer that 
amendment.
  We will and should have a longer and expanded debate about this 
issue. If we have the opportunity to offer amendments and have up-or-
down votes on issues, we will have an opportunity to take away, 
forever, the proposition that small businesses or family farms are 
going to be caught with an estate tax. We will offer an amendment that 
provides a threshold beyond which no family farms or small businesses 
will be ever threatened by an estate tax.
  That is not going to be the issue. The issue is much narrower than 
that. It is, Should we give up the revenue derived from an estate tax 
applied to the wealthiest estates in America? Should we give up revenue 
that could be used for other things, including reducing the Federal 
debt, providing middle-income tax relief, providing prescription drug 
benefits, or other urgent needs, or should we only decide our priority 
for the $250 billion is to relieve the tax burden on the estate of the 
wealthiest Americans? That is the question.
  The question we are dealing with this morning is a motion to proceed 
to this issue. Proceed to what? Proceed to the estate tax repeal. Shall 
we proceed to debate the estate tax repeal? I have another idea. How 
about proceeding to debate the issue of prescription drugs in the 
Medicare program?
  That is a bigger priority for me at the moment. Let's get that done. 
We have a very limited time between now and the middle of October when 
this Congress will complete its work. Let's proceed to do a Patients' 
Bill of Rights that gives real protection to patients in the health 
care system. Let's enact one that would say to a patient: You have a 
right to understand every option for your medical treatment--not just 
the cheapest --every option for your medical treatment; you have a 
right to that.
  Some say we have debated that. Yes, we debated it and passed a 
patients' bill of goods, not a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is a hollow 
vessel. Let's get that back to the floor. Let's have a vigorous and 
aggressive debate. Let's have a discussion about the issues we have 
raised.
  Let's have a discussion about the woman who was hiking in the 
Shenandoah mountains and fell off a 40-foot cliff and was taken to an 
emergency room with a concussion in a coma and multiple broken bones. 
After substantial medical treatment, she survived, only to be told by 
her HMO: We are not going to cover your emergency room treatment 
because you did not get prior approval to go to the emergency room.
  This is a woman who was hauled in on a gurney in a coma and did not 
have prior approval for emergency room treatment. Let's talk about 
that.
  Let's talk about a young boy named Ethan whose physical therapy was 
cut off. He was born with cerebral palsy, and it was judged by a 
managed care physician, or a managed care accountant, perhaps, that he 
had only a 50-percent chance of walking by age 5 and that was 
``insignificant": Therefore, the HMO said, we won't cover the 
rehabilitation therapy. Think about that. A 50-percent chance of 
walking by age 5 for young Ethan was deemed ``insignificant'' and so 
the HMO wouldn't cover his rehabilitation therapy. Let's talk about 
that.
  Pass a motion to proceed to a Patients' Bill of Rights, and we will 
talk about these cases and these issues.
  Let's talk about the young boy who died at the age 16. Senator Reid 
and I had a hearing in Nevada. The young boy's mother told the tragic 
story. As she took her seat, she was crying and was holding aloft a 
large color picture of her 16-year-old son who had died, having been 
denied the treatment he needed to fight his cancer by the managed care 
organization. She said with tears in her eyes, holding a picture of her 
son aloft: My son looked at me and said: Mom, how can they do this to a 
kid?
  Let's have a motion to proceed to talk about those issues. That is a 
priority with me.
  This question of a motion to proceed is a question about what is 
important, what are our priorities. I say bring a Patients' Bill of 
Rights and have an aggressive, full debate. That issue has been in 
conference, and the conference has not moved a bit. The last time I 
mentioned that one of my colleagues protested: Oh, we have made a lot 
of progress. Month after month there has been no progress at all. When 
I heard that, I told him at least glaciers move an inch or two a year. 
There is no evidence that conference is alive. On a Patients' Bill of 
Rights, nothing is happening.
  But, boy, take the estate tax repeal, just give some people around 
here a whiff of providing some big tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans 
and, all of a sudden, it is as if they had an industrial strength 
Vitamin B-12 shot. There is nothing but scurrying around this Chamber. 
Boy, are they excited.
  We are excited about some other things. In fact, there are plenty of 
ideas for middle-income-tax relief. If we want to talk about tax cuts, 
we should be cautious because economists really do not have the 
foggiest idea what is going to happen 2, 4, 6, 10 years from now. They 
just do not know. We have been through a period in which we think this 
economy will never go into reverse; we think the business cycle has 
been repealed. It has not. We are going to go through periods of 
contraction, and we are going to continue to have economic conditions 
that we cannot predict. So we ought to be cautious about predictions of 
large, unrelenting surpluses.

  Nonetheless, if we have surpluses in the future that are as generous 
as now predicted, it is perfectly reasonable for us to be talking about 
some targeted tax cuts that will make a real difference in the lives of 
people. There are plenty of such areas; repealing the estate tax for 
the wealthiest Americans does not rank high among them.
  Yes, getting rid of the estate tax for family farms and small 
business does rank high. We are prepared to offer that amendment. If 
our amendment is adopted, we are not going to have the interruption of 
a family farm or small business when it passes from parents to 
children.
  As I indicated earlier, there are 309 billionaires in this country. 
More than one-half of the billionaires--that is with a B--more than 
one-half of the billionaires in the world live in the United States. 
Good for us and good for them. I am as delighted as I can be with all 
that success. Many of them believe as I do that their estate ought to 
bear some estate tax when they die, and that estate tax, which we now 
receive, can be used for some other productive investments.
  Some have an idea--incidentally, I have worked on it some as well. My 
colleague from Nebraska has worked on a proposal called KidSave, which 
would invest in supplementary savings accounts for children. In fact, 
we could develop a proposal which I have worked on that would in which 
the largest estates bearing an estate tax would help provide a modest 
pool of savings for every baby born in this country who then could 
access those savings upon, for example, the completion of high school.
  What a wonderful incentive it would be to say to people that if they 
pay attention and do their homework and graduate from high school, a 
reward will be waiting for them. There are all kinds of ideas. But the 
only idea that moves around this Chamber is an idea on that side of the 
aisle that says we must repeal the entire estate tax and we must do it 
through a vote on this issue in this Chamber and we must do it by 
denying the minority the opportunity to offer any significant 
amendments.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for his eloquence on this point. 
Doesn't it really come down to on whose side are you? For whom do you 
come here to work? That is what my friend is saying. He is saying that 
if we did a fair alternative to the Republicans on this estate tax 
repeal, we can take care of those small family businesses, the farms, 
the people who have homes and have a lot of investment in them. We can 
essentially say only the very wealthiest, the ones who, frankly, owe a 
lot to the greatness of this Nation, the opportunity this Nation 
provides, their heirs would pay something and they would still wind up 
with millions and millions of dollars. My colleague is

[[Page S6414]]

saying, maybe even with a little bit of courage around here, we could 
target those funds to those who deserve to have the same shot.
  I just held in my State of California a very important seminar, which 
was a learning experience for me, on the cost of child care and the 
availability of important early education. What I learned is that in 
California, only one in five kids who need quality child care even has 
a slot. For four out of five of the kids, there is not even a slot. And 
if one is lucky enough to have a chance at that slot, does my colleague 
know what it costs? Almost as much as it does to go to a private 
college.
  I applaud my friend and ask him this question: Isn't this motion to 
proceed really about whose side are we on around here? Are we on the 
side of the vast majority of the people who get up every day and work 
hard and want a little attention to their problems--prescription drugs, 
Patients' Bill of Rights, the things my friend has discussed, quality 
education, quality child care--or those who earn in the billions, and I 
say billions because that is really who is going to be impacted by this 
repeal. I ask my friend that question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think the Senator from California is right. I was 
thinking also about the alternatives. We have had a lot of discussion 
and will have, I assume, a great deal more discussion on the ability to 
pass a family farm on to the children, and I certainly support that.
  I want to have an exemption that will prevent the estate tax from 
snaring in its web the passage of the family farm from parents to 
children.
  I will say to my friends who raise these issues, if you want to help 
family farmers, we have an amendment that will enable you to do that. 
But then you go further and say: We want to provide the richest 400 
people in America a $250 billion tax break during the second 10 years. 
That is triple the amount of money each year that we now spend on the 
farm program.
  We have this Freedom to Farm bill which is just devastating family 
farmers. Grain prices have collapsed. They have been collapsed for a 
long time. Perhaps we could take just a third of the amount of money 
they want to give in tax relief to the wealthiest estates in America--
just a third of it--and say: Let's have a farm program that really 
keeps family farmers on the farm. It is not a priority for some. See, 
that is the problem.
  It would be nice, for example--just in terms of what people think 
priorities are--if we could all go to an auction sale at some point. 
Arlo Schmidt, an auctioneer in North Dakota --he is a wonderful 
auctioneer--told me about a young boy about 8 years old who came up and 
grabbed him by the leg at the end of an auction sale.
  This boy was the son of a farmer whose machinery and land were being 
sold. This little boy grabbed the auctioneer around his thigh and, with 
tears in his eyes, looked up at him, pointed at him, and said: You sold 
my dad's tractor. This little boy was very angry. He said: You sold my 
dad's tractor. Arlo said: I patted him on the shoulder and tried to 
calm him down a little bit. This was after the action was over. His 
dad's equipment was gone, and so on.
  The little boy had none of this calming. The little boy, with tears 
in his eyes, said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big.
  The point is, we have a lot of things happening in this country that 
relate to family values and our economy and to what kind of country we 
are. One of them I care a lot about, because I come from a farm State, 
is the health of our family farmers and their ability to make a decent 
living.
  For those who would come to the Senate and say, let's get rid of the 
entire estate tax, I would say, regarding the wealthiest estates in our 
country, for you to flex your muscles and exert your energy to lift the 
burden of the estate tax from estates worth $1 billion, I do not 
understand it.
  I do not understand it when we have so many other needs, such as the 
need for income tax relief for middle-income families --not the wealthy 
estates--the need to enact a family farm program so the farmers have a 
decent chance to make a living, the need to adopt a Patients' Bill of 
Rights, the need to include a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare 
program--and do it soon. There are so many needs, and what you have 
done is elevate the need for lifting the burden of the estate tax on 
the largest estates in our country, saying: That is job No. 1. That is 
our priority.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator made reference to an alternative to the 
Republican proposal to eliminate the estate tax. I am reading from this 
alternative. I would like to have the comment of the Senator from North 
Dakota. The Democratic alternative to change the estate tax would 
increase the exemption from $1.3 million per couple to $2 million per 
couple by 2002, and to $4 million per couple by 2010; meaning, if your 
estate is at $4 million, in the year 2010 you would not pay a single 
penny in estate taxes. This would eliminate the tax on two-thirds of 
the estates currently subject to tax every year.
  The Democratic alternative would also increase the family-owned 
business exemption from $2.6 million per couple to twice that, of a 
general exemption, to $4 million per couple by 2002 and $8 million per 
couple by 2010. This would remove almost all family-owned farms and 75 
percent of family-owned businesses from the estate tax rolls.
  So the Democratic alternative eliminates two-thirds of the families 
paying estate taxes in America, 75 percent of the family-owned 
businesses, and virtually all of the family farms under the Democratic 
alternative, for a fraction of the cost of the Republican approach.
  I think the Senator from North Dakota has made it clear that the 
people who are left at that point paying the estate tax, under the 
Democratic approach, would include, if I have not mistaken his comment, 
the Forbes top 400 wealthiest people in America. They would still be 
paying the estate tax.
  I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota if I am not 
mistaken. Did he not say that the Republican approach, as opposed to 
the Democratic approach, would mean for the top 400 wealthiest people 
in America, the Republican tax break would be $250 billion? Was that 
the comment made by the Senator from North Dakota? It would be a $250 
billion tax break for 400 people in America? That is the Republican 
priority that they want to bring to the floor, and not consider 
everything else the Senator from North Dakota has raised?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is correct.
  Let me give you another piece of information. The largest 374 estates 
would get an average tax cut of $12.8 million. The largest 1,062 of the 
estates in this country--about five-hundredths of 1 percent of the 
estates--would get an estimated average tax cut of $7 million each.
  The point isn't to say that having made money in this country is 
wrong or you should be penalized for it. That is not my point. My point 
is not that. This is a wonderful place in which some people do very 
well. Many of them who do very well do so because they work day and 
night. They have a certain genius --and good for them. There are 
others, however, as all of us know, who are fortunate to inherit a 
substantial amount of money --and good for them as well.
  But our proposition is simple enough; that on those largest estates 
in this country--I am talking about the very largest estates--should 
there not be the retention of some basic estate tax to create some 
revenue that can be used then to invest in the future of this country, 
invest in its children, invest in its family farmers, invest in our 
senior citizens? Because we now receive that revenue. If we decide to 
repeal that revenue, the question is, measured against what? Is this 
the most important, or are there other areas that are more important? 
That is what we ought to be discussing.
  That is why the motion to proceed, I think, is the place to discuss 
this. We have on a postcloture motion a number of hours within which we 
can discuss this issue. I hope my colleagues will also take some time.
  I know it is popular to say: You know something, this is a death tax. 
The reason they say that is they have pollsters who poll the words, and 
they have discovered that if they use the words ``death tax,'' it is a 
kind of pejorative that allows people to believe: Well, OK, let's 
repeal the death tax.

[[Page S6415]]

  It is much more than that. It is a tax on a decedent's estate that 
applies at certain levels and at certain times. I would agree with the 
majority party, if they say the exemption isn't high enough. It should 
be much, much higher. We want to make it much higher. But I would not 
agree, and do not agree, if they say: Let us repeal the estate tax 
burden on the largest estates in this country.
  Again, let me say that there are many who have amassed very 
substantial estates who believe we should not repeal the estate tax 
burden. Incidentally, a substantial amount of charitable giving in this 
country is stimulated by the presence of an estate tax. I would not use 
that to justify its presence, but I would say that one additional 
result of a total repeal for the largest estates will, I think, have a 
very significant impact on foundations and charities in this country.
  But we are going to have a very substantial discussion as we move 
along. This is a very important issue dealing with a lot of revenue. I 
must say, it is interesting that the issue is brought to the floor of 
the Senate without even going to the Finance Committee. I would expect 
the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee would express 
great concern about that. This is an issue that has just bypassed the 
Finance Committee, just being brought right to the floor of the Senate, 
with no hearings, no discussions, no markup in the Finance Committee.
  It is also a circumstance where the majority leader has indicated he 
wants to bring this up, but he does not want people to offer amendments 
really. And if they are to offer amendments, he wants them to be 
relevant with respect to the decision of relevancy in the Senate, not 
with respect to what is relevant or nonrelevant about the subjects that 
are on the floor of the Senate.
  For example, if the proposal is to substantially cut revenue by 
exempting the largest estates in this country from any estate tax 
burden, if that is the proposal, it would not be relevant in the Senate 
to say: I have another idea. Why don't we retain the tax burden on the 
largest estates, exempt the tax burden on the other estates, and then, 
instead of costing the extra $50 or $60 billion for the first 10 years 
and substantially move over the next 10 years, let's use that 
difference to provide a middle-income tax break, or let's use that 
difference to provide a larger tax credit for college tuition to send 
your children to college. Let's use that difference to provide a 
benefit of prescription drugs in the Medicare program. Let's use that 
difference to pay down the Federal debt that now exists at around $5.7 
trillion--all of those ideas would be out of order and considered, 
under the arcane Senate rules, as nonrelevant.
  Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I yield, without losing my right to the floor.

                          ____________________