Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006

GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - August 01, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Republican whip for his remarks. I will address them in the same context, first, the earlier debate, what we are considering in the business of the Senate this week, and finally this bill that is pending before us.

What we have before us this week is a historic decision to make. It is a historic decision because, if the Republican majority prevails and if the bill, which they are asking us to pass, is enacted and signed by the President, what we will do is add dramatically to the national debt of America.

This morning's Washington Post suggested that the repeal of the estate tax will cost us, with interest over a 10-year period of time, about $750 billion. This Federal estate tax affects very few Americans--only those in the highest income categories. It is a tax that is imposed on about 2 out of every 1,000 people who die in the course of a year--2 out of 1,000. So 8,200 families each year will get a tax break if the Republican proposal is enacted. Those families, on average, will be spared paying a Federal tax, on average, of $1.4 million.

When you project that over a long period of time, it means that we will be paying out--I should say not collecting--$750 billion that otherwise would have come into our Treasury. The responsible thing to do, for either side of the aisle, if you are going to take $750 billion out of the Treasury, is either cut spending by that amount of money or impose another tax, another revenue source. That would be pay-as-you-go. So you would balance the books. You would say, for example, it is so important for us to reduce the taxes paid by 8,000 families a year--the highest income families--that I would propose raising another tax or I would propose making a cut. But that is not what is happening.

What is happening has become the ordinary course of business under our friends on the Republican side of the aisle. They continue to spend money and they continue to cut taxes without any concern for the impact on our national debt. Here is the record that Republicans have written on the budget: 4 years in a row of record deficits in the United States of America. In the closing years of the Clinton administration--and you can find this in the publications of our Government--we were generating surpluses. For the first time, we had turned the corner; we were reducing the national debt of America, strengthening the Social Security trust fund, and we had reached a point where we were moving forward with confidence that Social Security would be stronger for years to come and we would not be heaping more and more debt on our children. That was at the end of the Clinton administration.

Then came the Bush administration. President George W. Bush, in the 6 years he has been President, in the 4 years the Republicans have been in charge in the Senate, has seen record deficits. The debt is projected to soar under the Republican policies, this one-party rule in Washington--with the President's party in the White House, obviously, and in the Congress, the debt is projected to soar to more than $11 trillion by 2011. It will more than double; their policies will more than double foreign-held debt in 5 years, which I will speak to in a moment. There will be little real revenue growth since 2000. Every penny of the Social Security surplus, $2.5 trillion, will be spent on tax cuts, such as these, for wealthy people in America; and we will find that we are getting deeper and deeper in debt.

Let me illustrate that in a chart which Senator Conrad, our ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, uses. This is his ``wall of debt.'' This indicates what has happened since 2000, when President Bush came to office. He faced $5.8 trillion in debt. That was the entire accumulated debt of America, $5.8 trillion, when President Bush was sworn into office. Now, by the year 2006, that number is up to $8.5 trillion. Think about that. It went from $5.8 trillion up to $8.5 trillion today--under the people in charge who call themselves ``fiscal conservatives.'' The debt of America, as projected under their policies, will rise to the level of $11.5 trillion by 2011.

So by the policies President Bush and the Republicans in Congress put into place when they came to Washington, projected out over the 10-year period--that is how we do our budgeting here--it doesn't quite double the national debt, but it comes very close. Where do we get the money to do this? How can we continue to spend money we don't have? How can we build up all this debt? Who is going to provide the mortgage for America?

Well, it turns out that this President has found a source which he uses, which is historic. President Bush has turned to foreign governments to borrow money to sustain this overspending and cutting taxes without cutting spending. President Bush has more than doubled the amount of American debt held by foreign governments in 5 years. It took 42 Presidents in the history of the United States 224 years to build up $1.1 trillion in indebtedness to foreign governments. This President, in 5 years, has more than doubled that amount.

So who are our bankers? Who are America's mortgagors? When you look at the world's biggest borrowers, the United States dominates the scene. We borrow more money from around the world than anybody; 65 percent of all of the borrowing in the world comes from the United States. For instance, this estate tax repeal--by heaping on another $750 billion of debt on America that is not paid for and could rise as high as a trillion dollars, we have to turn to somebody and say loan us the money so we can give a tax break to the wealthiest people in the world. And we borrow more money than any other country. Other countries pale in comparison in terms of how much they borrow. Who are these mortgagors, these bankers who come to our rescue and loan us the money? No. 1, Japan; 2, China; 3, United Kingdom; 4, oil exporting countries--a recurring theme in our policy, our dependence on oil exporters--South Korea, Taiwan, and so forth.

So what we are doing is asking them to loan us money so we can give tax breaks to wealthy people. That is what this choice is this week. How bad is this? Well, the General Accounting Office Comptroller, General Walker, chosen by the Republicans, a very bipartisan man--I respect him. I wasn't sure when he came in if he had a political agenda, but he has been proven as a leader at the GAO who calls them as he sees them. Sometimes his messages make Democrats happy, sometimes they make Republicans happy. But I believe he does his best to be honest and candid. He said:

``Our problem is our large long-term deficit, and the sooner we deal with that the better,'' said Comptroller General David Walker. Walker warned of a false sense of security. We are in much worse shape fiscally today than we were a few years ago.

That was an interview in the L.A. Times of July of this year.

So this week, the Republicans will make this proposal: If we will agree to reduce and eliminate, in some cases, the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans who pass away--8,200 of them each year--then they will agree to increase the minimum wage for workers across America.

The difference is stark when one looks at the beneficiaries. The numbers tell the story: 8,200 families benefiting from a reduction in the estate tax to the tune of 41.4 million each family by average; the minimum wage affects 6.6 million beneficiaries, and their average benefit is $1,200. A $1,200 minimum wage increase; $1.4 million in estate tax relief or reduction for the wealthiest people. The ratio is 1,000 to 1; 1,000 to 1 the benefit for the wealthier people in America from the estate tax versus the benefit from the minimum wage.

And who will pay for this repeal of the estate tax? Our children will pay; the next generation will pay. America will go deeper into debt because the Republican leadership is going to add dramatically to the national debt of America. That is not responsible. It really doesn't have the best long-term interests of America in mind.

Many of us are concerned that those who work hard every day have been waiting 9 years for an increase in the minimum wage. For 9 years, the Republicans have stopped us from increasing the minimum wage. Imagine for a moment, if you will, trying to live on $5.15 an hour. Who are these people? They are the people who cleaned your hotel room this morning. They are the folks who cleared the table of dishes when you were finished at the restaurant. They are the ones who are watching your children at the daycare center. They are the people who are probably frying the hamburgers back in the little shop where you went in for lunch. They are making $5.15 an hour. That comes out to about $10,000 a year. Can you imagine? Can you imagine trying to get by, and imagine still if you have a child trying to get by?

For 9 years we said to the Republicans: Shouldn't we turn to the bipartisanship of increasing the minimum wage? That is just basic fairness, a humane approach to dealing with people. They have said no repeatedly. It is one of the longest stretches of time in American history that we have failed to increase the minimum wage.

So now this week they have said: We have a bargain for you. If you will cut the estate taxes on the wealthiest Americans, if you will build up debt for future generations of $750 billion or more, if you will cause us to borrow more money from foreign governments to sustain this indebtedness in America, if you will do that, then we will consider giving some of the hardest working, lowest paid Americans an increase in the minimum wage.

Doesn't this tell the story? Doesn't this tell the story between the differences between the two parties and their approach and attitude? We believe that an increase in the minimum wage is good for America and good for people who get up and go to work every single day. We think it is good for families, and it is good for their children. We think it is good for us in the long haul to reward work and to give a decent wage to people who get up and go to work. The Republicans, for 9 years, have said no.

We also think if you are going to cut taxes, for goodness' sake, why don't we start by trying to help working families? Wouldn't we be better off as a nation to talk about tax cuts that are limited and focused instead of these that are absolutely out of control? Wouldn't we be better off as a country saying working families, middle-income families could deduct the cost of college education expenses for their kids?

Isn't that a much better investment in our future than saying the wealthiest people in America, those who have benefitted the most from living in this great Nation should be spared and resolved from paying their taxes to our Government?

Shouldn't we be helping these working families and small businesses when it comes to providing health insurance? That is an increasing cost for most families, and certainly for small businesses. That is worthy of a tax break, one that means families will have peace of mind to have basic health insurance. These are things that most Americans would applaud.

But, no, the Republican proposal is take it or leave it. You either give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans at great expense to our Government, increasing our national debt dramatically, or the Republicans say: We won't increase the minimum wage for the hardest working workers in America.

I think that is a terrible idea. I hope we come to our senses. I hope we say to Republicans there is something more to life than rewarding those who are the most comfortable in America.

This is a time in America's history when we are asking for sacrifice. We are asking for great sacrifice from our men and women in uniform and their families, many of whom have given their lives for our country, many of whom have

left behind grieving families who will never get over their loss.

We usually say in time of war: America has to pull together; we all have to sacrifice together. Back in World War II, there were savings bond drives, collection of metals that might be important in the war effort, and victory gardens. People really pulled together.

This administration and this Republican Congress see it differently. When they ask for the greatest sacrifice from families who provide our soldiers and give them the support they need, they turn around and say to the wealthiest people in America: You don't have to sacrifice anything. In fact, we will give you a tax break.

This is the first President in the history of the United States of America who has cut taxes in the midst of a war, the very first. For obvious reasons, it makes no sense. If you faced a medical crisis in your family, if you faced medical costs in your family that exceeded your health insurance, medical costs that might wipe out your life savings, would you consider it responsible at that point to put an addition on your home or take a luxury vacation? No, you would make the commonsense, reasonable decision that in time of great need we cannot afford luxuries.

But listen to this administration and this Republican Congress: In time of war, a war that costs us $3 billion a week, they are proposing tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. Think of it: the debt that future American generations will face because of this war is going to be increased by this tax cut for the wealthiest people in America. It tells the whole story about their priorities.

So as we bring this week in the Senate to a close before the August recess, I believe there is a report card which the American people would like to have us address. The first part of the report card is this: What are you going to do about the war in Iraq? The Democrats came together--the leadership in the House and the Senate--and said to the President in a letter we sent just recently that it is time to start bringing American troops home. We have lost 2,573 of our best and bravest. They are now in a crossfire of a terrible civil war where 100 Iraqi civilians are being killed on average every single day.

We have had promises over and over again that the Iraqis will stand up and defend their own country. Yet they have not done it, at least not to the extent where any American soldier has come home. It is time for that to change.

It is time for change in Iraq. The Republicans don't want to address this issue. During the debate on the Defense authorization bill, they offered no amendments in terms of Iraqi policy. They rejected our effort to start bringing American troops home this year. They say: We are going to stay the bloody course in Iraq.

It is sad. It is time for us to assess honestly our future in Iraq.

The scorecard would obviously go to energy costs. As I travel around Illinois, and other Senators in their States, people are paying more for gasoline and hardships are being created. I was in Decatur, IL, on Saturday and had a roundtable. People came in and talked about the impact of gasoline costs on their lives and businesses. There were businesses large and small. There was a trash hauling business which has a lot of big scavenger trucks on the road around Decatur talking about increased costs. A woman came in from the UPS with 700 trucks that she moves around downstate Illinois and talked about the increased diesel costs. We had concerns, as well, from our veterans. There was a group that forms an honor guard and volunteers to perform an honor guard at military funerals. They travel about 1,200 miles a year to 150 funerals where they present the flag and have the appropriate respectful sendoff for the veteran who has died, and they are talking about the increased cost of gasoline.

Families and businesses, large and small, farmers--they are all talking about that. Yet the best we can do for an energy policy is the bill pending on the floor which will allow more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico but which will come up with only a few months' worth of natural gas for America and a few months' worth of oil.

We are not addressing the larger questions--questions, for example, about why we don't have CAFE standards for more fuel efficiency and fuel economy for the cars and trucks that we drive. This Congress, this Republican-led Congress has not seriously engaged in that conversation.

There is no conversation about giving businesses, small businesses across America and the people of this country the same basic health care protection that Members of Congress have.

That is what the Democrats believe we should do and move forward to do as quickly as possible.

We also believe when it comes to jobs in this country, this is an issue often overlooked. Our Tax Code rewards companies that send jobs overseas, and that has to stop. We have to have an increase in the minimum wage and not be held at gunpoint to say you can only have it by cutting the estate tax. The agenda is clear for America, but it is not the agenda of the Senate. That is why this November there is an appetite for change and leadership, a change in direction, a significant change for a new direction in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/