[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Page S10448]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in early August, I was unable to be in 
Washington for the cloture vote on the so-called trifecta bill, which 
so insidiously tried to hold hostage a necessary increase in the 
minimum wage and necessary extensions of tax credits important to 
American families and business to an excessive and unjustifiable 
reduction in the estate tax paid by the richest families in our 
country. I want to make clear that I would not have voted to allow this 
bill to proceed and that my inability to cast a vote in no way undercut 
the effort to stop this outrageous legislation. Since it was necessary 
for proponents of the legislation to find 60 votes irrespective of the 
number of votes against cloture cast by those of us in opposition, the 
very act of not voting for the cloture motion was, in effect, a vote 
against the motion.
  At the time of the vote, I issued a press statement expressing my 
disappointment over the Senate's failure to enact a minimum wage hike 
and my dismay at the Republican proponents' tactic of linking the wage 
hike to an estate tax giveaway that would have increased an already 
out-of-control Federal budget deficit. In that statement, I rejected 
the Republicans proponents' hollow claim to favor a minimum wage 
increase. In fact, they have actively opposed a minimum wage increase 
for years; in this trifecta bill, they were using the wage hike only as 
a cynical ploy to attract votes for the estate tax rollback.
  In my statement, I noted that the failure of the trifecta bill, 
though a victory for fiscal sanity, was no cause for rejoicing. An 
inappropriately low national minimum wage has been a big part of the 
problem of working-family poverty for many years. It is a problem for 
workers in Connecticut where the State minimum wage is higher, since a 
low national minimum wage creates pressure for companies to move 
Connecticut jobs to low wage States. The minimum wage was last raised 
almost 10 years ago. We need to act this year to pass a minimum wage 
increase--without tying it to an excessive cut in the estate tax. It is 
also essential that we pass the tax ``extenders'' which will support 
families paying college tuition, promote work opportunities for low- 
income Americans, and give incentives to businesses pursuing important 
research and development. These and other important tax extenders were 
also taken hostage by the Republicans' irresponsible estate tax scheme.
  I have cosponsored a separate bill that would raise the minimum wage 
and extend these important tax incentives for middle-class families and 
businesses. I will continue to work with my colleagues to accomplish 
these goals without paying the high cost of excessive estate tax cuts 
to the wealthiest sliver of the population.
  Mr. President, I also wish to express my support for the pension 
reform legislation which passed the Senate on August 2. Had I been 
present, I would have voted in favor of the conference report.
  While we all recognize that the legislation that passed was not 
perfect, it marked the end of a long and difficult legislative process 
that necessarily involved a great deal of compromise on all sides. It 
represents a success in terms of bipartisan cooperation in the Senate, 
something we need to see much more of in the future so we can truly 
begin to address many of the serious and complex problems our nation 
faces.
  Senate passage of the pension reform bill was the culmination of more 
than a year of work by lawmakers concerned about record unfunded 
liabilities at the PBGC--which is supposed to be the bulwark against 
pension collapse--as well as what had become a widespread epidemic of 
chronic underfunding of pension plans.
  The legislation as passed by the House and Senate, and now signed by 
the President, would require companies to fund 100 percent of their 
plan liabilities, up from 90 percent under current law. Those with 
funding shortfalls generally would have 7 years to make up the 
difference. Companies at risk of default would be subject to other 
restrictions and would have to make accelerated contributions.
  The legislation provides specific relief for financially troubled 
airlines, giving up to 17 years to fully fund their plans. Some 
airlines were given more relief than others, so there may be an effort 
to pass a technical corrections bill to address this issue.
  Also included in the legislation are provisions aimed at encouraging 
workers to make contributions to retirement savings plans, including 
allowing companies to automatically enroll employees in a 401(k). This 
will accomplish a relatively simple but tremendously effective change 
to ensure that more Americans are saving for their retirement
  The legislation also contains many other improvements and protections 
to the necessarily complex system we have constructed to address the 
retirement security of tens of millions of our citizens. The bill would 
provide needed reforms to both single employer and multiemployer plans; 
to defined benefit as well as defined contribution plans; and to hybrid 
``cash balance'' plans. It also provides greater security to spouses 
with respect to their share of a spouse's retirement plan after death 
or divorce.
  Further, the bill includes tax incentives for charitable giving. Many 
of these incentives were in the CARE Act which I have sponsored in this 
as well as previous congresses.

                          ____________________