ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[Congressional Record: July 11, 2000 (Senate)]

[Page S6408-S6415]

From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access []




                             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 


  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.]






















     Chafee, L.




































































     Smith (NH)

     Smith (OR)


















  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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 


  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.






Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: