New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act and the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007--Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 28, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Would my colleague from Nevada yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to ask my colleague from Nevada: Wouldn't it be true that the ambit the minority leader asked for would allow the other side to automatically have amendments on, say, renewing the President's tax cuts, or undoing what happened with the estate tax, and repealing the entire estate tax; nothing to do with this housing bill? That is my first question.
My second question is: If the minority leader showed the majority leader five amendments that were within the confines of this legislation--ideas such as the Isakson idea or the Martinez idea or others such as that--that he would willingly go along and we would come to the floor and debate the amendments and move the bill forward but that the parameters the minority leader has asked for would allow us to debate the whole--everything but the kitchen sink and bring up all these old saws that we have been through again; isn't that correct?
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, I indicated I don't like what Senator Specter is trying to do with this bill. He has an absolute right to offer that, and he should be able to do that. What he wants to do basically is have a Durbin line--basically strike the provision on bankruptcy. I don't like that. But it is in keeping with what this legislation would be. The parameters I don't like have to do with housing and the economy. Now, try that one on.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, asking another question, that could mean renew the Bush tax cuts until 2025. That could be within the ambit of what the minority leader asked for; is that correct?
Mr. REID. That is true. I don't know how much more I can telegraph my punches. I said--you were present, Senator Durbin was present, and Senator Murray was present when we met with scores of press people today. They said: Are you going to allow amendments? I said: Yes, happy to have amendments. Talk about telegraphing my punches.
One of my Democratic colleagues--I will mention his name because he would not care--Senator Carper from Delaware, he said: Here are some amendments they might want to offer. How do you feel about that? Fine. I want to legislate to deal with the housing crisis. We have a housing crisis. I have one in Nevada, you have one in Illinois, you have one in New York, you
have a real big one in Michigan, and California has 25 percent of all the foreclosures in the country. Everyplace in America has a problem with that.
We could stimulate the economy. I defy anyone to say that what we are doing would not stimulate the economy.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, one more question to the leader: Has the minority leader shown the five amendments to us he wishes to offer, or he just sort of wants a carte blanche, more or less?
Mr. REID. I am the one who suggested the amendments that I have heard the Republicans want to offer. The answer is, no, I have not seen a single amendment. I didn't start talking about amendments this morning. When I moved to this piece of legislation, I told the distinguished Republican leader, let's work something out on amendments. The original number of five came from me.
Mr. SCHUMER. Is it a pretty fair assumption that what the minority leader is doing, maybe for himself, maybe for others in his caucus, is he wants an opportunity to get off the housing debate and go on to the old saws we always hear from them on, such as the estate tax, Bush tax cuts, and other things not relevant to this bill? Would that be a reasonable assumption, given the minority leader's actions?
Mr. REID. Yes. I say to my friend, things that have done so much good for our economy--so much good for our economy. We are upside down with red ink on everything.
So the answer is: Yes. We need more tax cuts, we need more money spent on wars around the country, around the world.
I don't know of anybody who thinks the economy is doing very well. Even today we had the President say things are not good, but we are not in a recession. I think the economists would totally disagree.
Source