Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 4787 to the motion to concur in the House amendment.

My amendment would restore the estate tax exemption level and top estate tax rates to their 2009 levels of $3.5 million and 45 percent, respectively. It would leave all the other modifications to the estate, gift, and so-called generation-skipping transfer taxes the same as they appear in the underlying amendment.

Raising the estate tax exemption level to $5 million and lowering the rate to 35 percent is not the responsible thing to do given our current fiscal situation, and it would only exacerbate widening wealth inequality in America. Only 3 of every 1,000 decedents have estates in excess of $3.5 million.

At a time when some people are seriously discussing cutting Social Security, which is relied upon by so many millions of Americans, how can Congress consider this action to benefit the top three-tenths of 1 percent of the population?

While we don't have an estimate of the savings to the Treasury from this amendment, we do know it would save our Treasury tens of billions of dollars, which we need to help continue unemployment insurance, Social Security, and other critical programs.

Whether one agrees with this amendment or not, this is an amendment which should be debated. The Senate should have an opportunity to debate this issue. Unless we get unanimous consent, the way this is currently structured, the Senate will be denied this opportunity. Whether people support it, oppose this estate tax change or don't know, the way the Senate ought to operate is we should have a chance to vote on this amendment.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST

So I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 4787 to the motion to concur in the House amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BARRASSO. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, when the Senate invoked cloture on this bill yesterday evening, and adopted the procedure used after cloture, those of us who oppose portions of this bill lost any opportunity to address the problems we see and seek to repair them. I voted against the motion to invoke cloture because I hoped that, if the cloture motion failed, the Senate would have a chance to consider a better bill, and to improve it through the traditional method of debate and amendment.

That did not happen.

I have spoken, as have others, about the defects of this proposal. Its tax cuts are unwisely skewed toward the wealthy, including an estate tax provision that would benefit a few thousand of our most fortunate taxpayers at great cost to the Treasury. These benefits for the wealthiest among us will not, despite the claims of our Republican colleagues, help our economic recovery. Nearly everyone says that should be our top priority, and it should be. As a host of economists across the ideological spectrum have demonstrated, tax cuts for the well-to-do have little impact on economic growth.

It is not just that these benefits for the wealthiest will have no positive impact on our economy. What is worse, the upper income tax cuts and estate tax provisions that Republicans support would add more than $100 billion to the national debt over the next 2 years. Republicans in this Chamber repeatedly tell us that the 2010 election was a call for more fiscal restraint. Yet their most significant action following that election has been to insist upon tax cuts for the wealthy paid for with billions of dollars in borrowed money.

It is not just the inconsistency of our Republican colleagues that I find so troubling. It is that in pursuit of their goal, they are holding hostage progress for the American people, not just on tax cuts, but on a range of other crucial issues. They tell us they will not support tax provisions that help working families unless we also include huge giveaways for the wealthy. They tell us we cannot continue emergency unemployment benefits unless we also give several times the cost of those benefits to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. They tell us we cannot provide tax relief to help businesses grow and add workers unless we also give away more borrowed money to the wealthy.

And there is more. Republicans have filibustered the defense authorization bill, crucial legislation for the good of our troops and their families, because we have not yet passed tax cuts for the wealthy. They blocked consideration of the New START treaty, a treaty supported by past presidents and secretaries of state of both parties, a treaty that will make our Nation and the entire globe safer and more secure. In an extraordinary letter, all 42 Senate Republicans have said they will not allow the Senate to consider any legislation, no matter how important, until we give billions in borrowed money to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts.

Despite the flaws in this bill and the process by which it comes before us, it has a number of strengths. Greatest among them is the extension of emergency unemployment benefits. In my State and others, thousands of Americans are without work through no fault of their own, and they and their families are depending on us to give them the support they need. These benefits are not just critical to those families, but they also have a highly stimulative impact on the economy. Extending the UI program is the right thing to do. We need to do it, and we can do it yet this year, if we stay here and continue working, as we should, right through to the new year.

But even some of the positives in this legislation have significant drawbacks. The 2 percent payroll tax cut would be welcomed by working families, and could help the economy grow. But it would also cost the Treasury more than $110 billion in borrowed money next year. While some argue that might still be an acceptable price for boosting economic growth, I believe it is very unlikely that Congress will have the will to let that tax cut expire next year. Already, some of our Republican colleagues are talking of making the cut permanent. That money, otherwise lost to the Social Security trust fund, must come from somewhere, and I am concerned that it will come from cuts to Social Security or other essential programs.

We can support middle-class families, job-producing businesses and the unemployed without unleashing the damage this legislation would do to our budget and to economic justice.

I cannot accept the price Republicans want to extract from us. We need not accept it if we have the will to debate and amend this legislation and are willing to stay through the end of this year to do it. The damage to our fiscal situation and to Social Security, and the damage done by continued inequality these tax cuts would perpetuate, is unacceptable. Beyond that, I believe it would be a mistake to allow Republicans to succeed in their irresponsible brinkmanship, blocking aid to working families and the important other business before the Senate in order to secure benefits for the wealthiest Americans.

I fully expect that my Republican colleagues will soon be urging this body to rein in the debt. Already, we have seen proposals that would seek to remedy our Nation's fiscal crisis by dramatically cutting crucial programs, including Social Security. It is not a stretch to suggest that the cost of this bill alone will lead some to argue that Congress must enact more and deeper cuts to essential programs, including Social Security--all so that we can give away money the government does not have to the wealthiest few.

We must stand up and fight against an approach that would sacrifice aid to the vast majority of Americans on the altar of unaffordable tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I believe that time should be today. And so I will vote against this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source