Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005--Motion to Proceed

NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2005--MOTION TO PROCEED

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I can, I wanted to spend a couple of minutes on a matter that this body voted on this morning. I was unavoidably absent this morning at a family matter in Rhode Island, so I was not here for the vote. But I wanted to just take a minute or so here to say to my colleagues and to others that had I been present this morning, I would have voted no on the motion for cloture, and had cloture been invoked, I would have voted against the amendment. I am speaking of the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriages.

Like many of my colleagues who have spoken on this matter, I believe this is a matter that belongs in the States. This is not a matter that ought to be a part of the Constitution. I have been here for a number of years in the Senate, and over the history of this great country of ours there have been over 11,000--more than 11,000 proposed constitutional amendments. The Congress and the Nation in its wisdom over the years have adopted only a handful of those proposals--27 is the number of amendments that have been adopted since the formation of our country. The reason for that, of course, is the Founders insisted that it be not an easy matter to amend the Constitution and that we ought to amend the Constitution to correct problems in the governmental structures or to expand the category of individual rights such as the first 10 amendments achieved in our Nation.

Our Nation's constitutional history clearly demonstrates that change to our Constitution is appropriate on only the rarest occasions--specifically, to correct problems in the government structure or to expand the category of individual rights such as the first 10 amendments which compose the Bill of Rights. Notably, the amendment to establish prohibition is the only time that the Federal Constitution was amended for a reason other than those I just mentioned.

It was repealed 13 years after its enactment and has been judged by history to be a failure insofar as it sought to restrict personal liberty.

The Framers deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution. They did not intend it to be subject to the passions and whims of the moment. Time has proven their wisdom. Since 1789, when the first Congress was convened, there have been 11,413 proposals to amend the Constitution. Sixty-four have been offered in this Congress alone. Luckily, only 27 have been successful. If all or even a substantial fraction of these proposed amendments were adopted, our founding document would today resemble a Christmas tree, a civil and criminal code rather than a constitution, and the United States would be a very different Nation.

It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Senate does not share James Madison's view that the Constitution should only be amended ``for certain, great, and extraordinary occasions.''

Supporters of this proposed amendment would like you to believe that there is currently an ``assault'' on traditional marriage by some American couples and families that warrants Federal action in the form of a constitutional amendment to ``protect'' the institution of marriage. They have utterly failed to marshal even a minimal degree of credible facts to support such a claim.

Indeed the facts suggest that there is no such crisis. The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, was enacted in 1996 to provide a federal definition of marriage and to stipulate that no state should be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a definition of marriage.

There has been no successful challenge to the DOMA in the decade since its enactment. Courts have never identified a Federal right to same-sex marriage. States have never been forced to recognize an out-of-state marriage that is inconsistent with its own laws.

And no church, temple, mosque, or synagogue has been forced to perform marriages inconsistent with the beliefs of those who worship in them. For Congress to step in now and dictate to the States how they ought to proceed in this matter thus runs counter to the facts. It also runs counter to the principles of federalism and personal liberty that many proponents of this constitutional amendment claim to hold dear.

I am disappointed that we find ourselves spending valuable time on the Senate floor debating this issue. Less than 2 years ago, the majority leader brought the same measure to the Floor. It failed by a vote of 48 to 50. There is no reason to think that it will not fail again.

It is no coincidence that approximately 5 months before the upcoming midterm elections the Senator floor is being held hostage by the majority's misguided priorities. I fear that some of those leading the charge on this legislation are more interested in dividing Americans for partisan gain than uniting the country to solve problems.

Make no mistake: married couples are under considerable strain these days. But the cause of that strain is not the conduct of other American couples going about their daily private lives. Instead, married couples and all Americans are feeling the strain of high gas prices, soaring health care costs, schools in need of reform, a sluggish economy, and a war in Iraq in which American men and women are fighting with courage. Yet this administration and others in this body have little to offer to relieve these strains. Instead, they seek legislation that will only divide and distract Americans from the common challenges we should be facing together.

This proposed constitutional amendment is not the best use of our time. We should be addressing the real needs of American families. We should be legislating. That is what we are elected to do--to address issues like autism, underage drinking, the growing problem of obesity among our nation's children, and the threat of terrorism. But today we have not been afforded that opportunity. Instead, today feels like Groundhog Day.

It is another election year and we are here discussing another issue that has nothing to do with the great challenges of our time.

Only on one occasion did we deviate from that practice and that was the adoption of the amendment dealing with the prohibition of the consumption of alcoholic beverages. That was a complete deviation from the two situations in which the Founders intended that we would amend the Constitution of the United States.

I might point out that it was only a few years after the adoption of the amendment on prohibition that it was repealed by the Congress of the United States and the people across this country.

It would be a mistake, in my view, to repeat another error like that which was committed in the early part of the 20th century when we adopted the prohibition amendment.

Supporters of this amendment like to say that this debate is about an assault on the institution of marriage. I do not believe that to be the case. I do believe, however, that there is currently an assault on families. I am disappointed this body is not spending the time allocated for this debate talking about the important issues families today. For example, we could be talking about the bill dealing with autism that my colleague from Pennsylvania and I have authored and we are trying to get attention on. Obviously the issues of energy prices, education, health care--there are any number of issues I can think of that we might have spent time discussing. We should be trying to come up with some answers rather than debate a question which has marginal significance and minimal importance for most people and which ought really to be left to the States.

Let me also suggest that the motivations behind this may not be helping families but instead inciting a political debate for the elections coming up this fall. What worries me more than anything else, however, is I think it is designed to make people angry, to divide us as a country. I am deeply concerned about the growing divisions occurring in our Nation. This is a time when we ought to be coming together, when our leadership ought to be asking us to sit down and try to come up with answers on some of the overwhelming problems we face--not problems that are so overwhelming we can't answer them. Instead, we are spending that valuable time on a matter that is clearly designed to do nothing more than inflame the passions of people in this country rather than appealing to calm, to rationality, to common sense, to good discourse as a way of addressing the underlying issues. This is a great disappointment.

Again, I would have voted no on the motion to invoke cloture. I am pleased my colleagues from both parties, in a bipartisan way, rejected that cloture motion. It was a good conclusion reached here, and I regret I was not able to be here to cast a vote along with my colleagues who expressed a similar point of view.

THE ESTATE TAX

If I may, I wish to turn to the matter at hand; that is, the debate regarding the estate tax. The last time this body was scheduled to consider legislation to repeal the estate tax, the majority leader decided to postpone consideration of this bill in the wake of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. The general consensus was it was unseemly for us to be talking about having one-half of one percent--and that is what we are talking about, one-half of 1 percent of the population of this country--receive a bonanza, if you will, by repealing the obligation to share part of their estates to contribute to the growth and benefit of our Nation. The decision was it would be unseemly.

In fact, my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said, ``It's a little unseemly to be talking about doing away with or enhancing the estate tax at a time when people are suffering.''

I agree with my colleague from Iowa. I agreed with him then; I agree with him now. If it was unseemly to be talking about enhancing the wealth of the wealthiest in our society at a time when the Nation was suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina only a few short months ago, I suggest that problems have not abated so substantially that we can now make the case that it is no longer unseemly, if you will, to use his language, to adopt a provision here that would make it far more difficult for us to address all of our other priorities as a Nation.

I hope our colleagues will agree and join with others in voting against cloture on the motion to proceed to what I consider to be irresponsible legislation.

Today's discussion is about priorities, as it always should be. I have supported lower taxes for working Americans, including responsible estate tax reform. I think it is wrong to have excessive estate taxes imposed on ordinary farmers and small businesses owners out there who try to leave those businesses or land to their families. Because of the modest incomes most people in these groups make, they could find it impossible to do so under an excessive tax.

I note the presence of my good friend from Arkansas on the Senate floor who speaks eloquently about the farmers in her State who have been left, generation after generation, farms and land for succeeding generations to continue their great traditions. The Presiding Officer comes from a State with a strong agricultural tradition. All of our States have strong small business components, and all of us understand the importance of allowing those families to pass on to succeeding generations the ability to continue those efforts. But I hope my colleagues agree as well, that talking about the total elimination of this estate tax is, I think, irresponsible. It goes too far when we start talking about providing such a massive benefit for only the largest one-half of 1 percent of estates.

I represent the most affluent State in the United States on a per capita basis. I presume as a percentage of my population I have a larger number of estates that would benefit from total repeal than most of the other members of this body, with the exception of my colleague, Senator Lieberman. I can tell you that the few estates that can benefit as a result of the distinction we are making between reform of the estate tax and total repeal seems to go too far, considering the revenue loss it would mean to our country.

We are talking about a revenue loss on an annual basis that exceeds the entire amount of money we commit to elementary and secondary education. Think of that. The entire amount of money in the Federal budget toward elementary and secondary education would be lost as a result of the complete and total repeal, rather than a modest, intelligent, thoughtful, rational reform of this estate tax. We should not bankrupt our Nation's future for a measure that would deliver no benefit to anyone outside a few extremely wealthy estates.

I might point out that some of the most wealthy Americans, people who would benefit the most from this total repeal, have been the loudest, clearest voices urging us not to do so. We ought to take note that the Gates family, people like Warren Buffett, people like John Kluge, people who have made great fortunes in this country and made those great fortunes in their own time, through creative work, not inherited wealth, are urging us, despite the fact that they would benefit to the tune of billions of dollars with a total repeal--listen to the Warren Buffetts, the Bill Gateses, the John Kluges, when they tell you this would be an unwise decision to make to just completely repeal a tax that is so important for continuing our ability to meet our obligations.

Let's not forget we are a nation at war, with American troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a terrible human and monetary cost. Repealing the estate tax will cost some $776 billion over 10 years, which would fully be applied beginning after 2011. Not a penny of this cost would be offset. It would all be added to our Nation's debt, which is already now at $8.4 trillion.

I made the case a few weeks ago--how big is $8.4 trillion? If we were to go out on the Capitol steps out here and hand out a hundred-dollar bill every single second, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, how long do you think it would take to pay off $8.4 trillion? I will tell you the answer. It would take more than 2600 years--24 hours a day, 7 days a week, a one-hundred-dollar bill every second, handing it out. It would take 2,635 years. That is the amount of debt we have accumulated over the last few years, and now we are about to add to that to the tune of almost another trillion dollars here if you take what the revenue loss would be and the added interest cost of some $213 billion. That would be the revenue loss that would result from repealing the estate tax. More than a trillion dollars that would benefit no one at all outside the largest one-half of 1 percent of the estates in the United States; 99.5 percent of the estates in the United States would not gain at all by the proposals to have a modification or reform of the estate tax. Each year of repeal on average would cost roughly the same in today's terms as everything the Government now spends on homeland security and education.

Over the past 5 1/2 years, the current administration has radically altered our Nation's economic and social well-being, in my view. Median incomes have stagnated, poverty rates have risen, and more and more people are living without health insurance. Our troops have struggled with inadequate body armor and other necessities of battle. Farmers, workers, and small business owners are contending with rising interest rates, higher energy and health care costs, and growing global competition. While these problems have grown, the administration has severely reduced our Nation's ability to meet them by driving our Federal budget from surplus into deep deficit.

Since the current President took office, the Federal budget has declined from a surplus of $128 billion to a deficit of more than $300 billion. The national debt has risen to $8.4 trillion. In just 5 and a half years, the administration has added more debt from foreign creditors than every other President in the history of the United States combined--in the last 5 years.

Repealing the estate tax would make these problems far worse, not better, and further hurt America's ability to address our most pressing issues.

A few months ago, the administration and the majority of this body enacted a budget reconciliation bill, the so-called Deficit Reduction Act. This bill made deep cuts to health care, childcare, and education, with the burden falling most heavily on working Americans--in particular on low-income parents and children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The American people were told these cuts were necessary because of the deep budget deficits our country was facing. Yet here we are today, having been told only a few months ago that this great budget reconciliation act was necessary, despite the fact that we are going to ask those who are the least capable in many cases of providing for their needs, feeling the tremendous pressure they are, here we are today only a few weeks later being told that we can afford to take $1 trillion out of the budget to serve one-half of 1 percent of the estates in this great country of ours.

Where is the logic in that? Mr. President, 99.5 percent of the estates in our country would not be adversely affected by what we are talking about. They would not pay an estate tax. Only one-half of 1 percent would. Yet $1 trillion gets lost as a result of that decision, over the next 10 years, at a time, as I mentioned earlier, when we are not paying for the war and we find ourselves in tremendous need if we start talking about education, health care, and homeland security, just to mention two or three items.

Some proponents of the estate tax repeal have propagated the myth that the estate tax disproportionately harms farmers and small businesses by forcing them to sell their family farm or business in order to pay the tax. This just is not true. It is a scare tactic used by those who will benefit from repeal to create support for their cause. In reality, when the New York Times asked the American Farm Bureau Federation for real-life examples of a family farmer forced to sell by the estate tax, not a single example could be found. Not a single one.

Contrary to the misinformation that has been spread, no one but the very largest estates would ever pay this tax on inherited wealth. This year, an individual can pass on as much as $2 million and a couple can pass on as much as $4 million to their heirs, completely free of any taxation whatsoever. With these exemptions, 99.5 percent of all the estates in the United States would owe no tax at all. Those that will owe, only owe on the value of their estate that exceeds the $2 or $4 million that I just mentioned. With the exemption levels scheduled to rise in 2009 to $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples, the percentage who will owe a single cent in estate tax falls to a mere 0.3 percent of the population that would pay any estate tax at all.

So 99.7 percent of the American population would have no obligation whatsoever. Yet we are about to enact legislation here that would repeal this altogether.

I do not understand that at all. How do you explain to people today that your child or your spouse serving in Iraq or Afghanistan? We are being told we don't have enough money for body armor or to up-armor the vehicles they drive, or that homeland security has to be cut because we don't have the revenues to support it. Yet we turn around and do something like this? Where is the logic in this? Under these rules, the number of Americans affected by the estate tax has declined dramatically already under current law, from 50,000 people in 2000 to only 13,000 today, and by 2009 the number will fall to 7,000. Out of a nation of 300 million people, 7,000 people in our 50 States would not be obligated to pay any estate tax at all.

Seven-thousand out of three hundred million, yet we lose $1 trillion in revenue.

Again, where is the logic or common sense in a proposal like that given the damage it would do?

As I said, my State of Connecticut ranks consistently year after year at or near the top of the Nation in per capita income and other such measures. In my State and across America, people of all incomes have worked hard, obviously, to get where they are.

I don't like class warfare. I don't like drawing those distinctions. Many of these people I mentioned, pay taxes and have worked hard, and I respect that.

I urge my colleagues to listen to some of the men and women who have accumulated the greatest wealth as a result of their ingenuity and hard work. What are they saying about this in terms of the benefit to the country and the cost it would have?

In my State, I probably have a greater percentage of constituents than almost any other State in the country who would benefit if there is a total repeal. I stand here today, telling you that an overwhelming majority of the very people who would benefit from this, think it goes too far; that we are going too far with this proposal.

I urge my colleagues to join those who have urged us to be more modest, to have a more commonsense approach than repeal or near-repeal. Again, it would be a major failure to lose the revenue equal to that which we spend on all of the education for elementary and secondary school students, all of the spending on homeland security, to once again drive us further and further into debt. I think it is a great tragedy to be passing that on to the coming generations, to say we want to give a tax break only to the top five-tenths of 1 percent, or three-tenths of 1 percent of the population. That is an indictment that future generations will look back on and ask: What were they thinking at the beginning of the 21st century that they would take such a significant step as to deprive this Nation of the ability to have the revenue we need in order to meet our obligations?

When the vote on cloture on this matter occurs, I urge Members to vote no.

There is a way to do this, and I think many of us are willing to support responsible reform in the estate tax area. But the notion of total repeal, I think, is highly irresponsible.

I urge my colleagues to join in the condemnation of that suggestion.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/