Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2009 -- Continued
Floor Speech
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--Continued -- (Senate - March 12, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from North Dakota would further yield, I was listening carefully to his debate as I presided. It is my understanding that he says under current law, two-tenths of 1 percent of the people who die in the United States each year might be subject to liability to pay the estate tax or, as the Republicans called it, the so-called death tax.
Mr. CONRAD. Yes, that is true, under the exemption rates for next year. Under the exemption rates for next year, it will be two-tenths of 1 percent. I believe this year it is five-tenths of 1 percent; there are 99.5 percent this year that are exempt. Next year it will be 99.8 percent exempt, as the rate goes up.
Mr. DURBIN. I tried to do a quick calculation on the .2 percent. I think I have come to the conclusion that each year in America, 3.5 million Americans die. Of that number, you are projecting that 7,000 out of 3.5 million might have some estate tax liability next year?
Mr. CONRAD. That is the correct math.
Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding the proposal by the Senator from Arizona is to further enlarge the exemption of those who pay this tax, so that even fewer than 7,000 will actually pay. Is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. My understanding is--and the Senator might correct me--that under the Kyl proposal the cost would be approaching $200 billion over--$458 billion over 10 years.
Mr. DURBIN. So the Senator from North Dakota, as chairman of the Budget Committee, has come to the floor repeatedly with a chart which he can get his hands on in a moment that talks about the accumulation of debt in America under the Bush administration compared to the accumulation of debt in America under all previous Presidents. Does the Senator recall the numbers that were involved in that chart?
Mr. CONRAD. Well, first, in terms of the gross debt of the United States, under this President's watch, the gross debt has nearly doubled. The foreign holding of U.S. debt has more than doubled.
This is it. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of external debt. Perhaps this is the chart the Senator is referring to. It took 42 Presidents, all of these Presidents pictured, 224 years to run up $1 trillion of debt, U.S. debt held abroad. This President, as you can see, has far more than doubled that amount in 7 years.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me, through the Chair, ask the Senator from North Dakota a question. The pending amendment by the Senator from Arizona is not paid for, which means he has not suggested increasing some other tax to set it off or cutting spending to offset it; it is simply added to the debt of America. And if that debt the Senator from Arizona wants to add to our national debt over the next 10 years is funded from foreign sources, how much more is going to be added to this figure by the amendment of the Senator from Arizona?
Mr. CONRAD. Well, if his amendment costs another $458 billion, it is not offset. And in a typical bond auction now conducted by the United States, over half of the money, well over half now, is money from abroad. So you can take well over half of the $458 billion, and it would be added to this external debt.
Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask the Senator, who is going to pay this debt?
Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the unfortunate part of, as I see it, the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. What he is doing is saying--he is asking all of us, all Americans, to put our name on the bill. But the money is only going to two-tenths of 1 percent of us. I think that is unfortunate.
Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when I am done.
Mr. KYL. I think it would be fair to let me answer.
Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from North Dakota has the floor. I am sure he will yield to the Senator from Arizona.
So that I understand this--I want to make it clear--in order to spare, at a maximum, 7,000 of the wealthiest people in America who may die in the outgoing years, in order to spare them estate tax liability, even though America has been very kind to them and they have lived very comfortable lives because of this great Nation, to spare them the possibility of paying back to this country for having lived and enjoyed this great Nation, we are going to add some $400 billion plus in debt to Americans. And over half of that will end up being debt we owe to foreign countries, as I understand the Senator from North Dakota. Is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. I think that is clearly correct.
Mr. DURBIN. So for those who are so-called fiscal conservatives, we are going to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America, and add debt for everyone else in America, an added debt we are going to borrow from overseas and ask our children to pay for it. It sounds like a great idea if you happen to be in the lucky 7,000 club. This lucky 7,000 club that will be benefitted by Senator Kyl's amendment will have a great outcome. It appears that everyone loses--I take that back. Everyone but China and Japan and other countries will be losers in this proposal by the Senator from Arizona. Is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I think that is undeniably the case. The problem this country confronts now is we have massive deficits and, under this President, a dramatic increase in the debt. So all of these provisions are based on borrowed money. So why would we go borrow this amount of money, which is increasingly from foreign countries, in order to give a benefit to two-tenths of 1 percent of the American people, when 99.8 percent of the estates in this country are already exempted from the taxation? That is lost on me.
Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask one more question--I know the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak--aside from the lucky 7,000 club the Senator from Arizona is taking care of, the wealthiest people in America--nothing but good luck, they have lived comfortable lives in a great democratic, free nation with the protection of our laws, and now, as they leave and go to perhaps a better place, they want to make sure they do not pay back to this Nation, aside from the lucky 7,000 club.
I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota, I have heard this concept, talking about pay as you go, that the Democrats, when they came to control the Congress, would pay for any tax cuts or any spending increases so it would not add to the national debt. So I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota, I know he believes in it very passionately: Is this a pay-as-you-go proposal from the Republican side so that there is no net loss to future generations? Is this being taken care of by the Senator from Arizona offsetting it, for example, with an increase in taxes on maybe working people of this country or some other group or cutting spending in some other area?
Mr. CONRAD. No, this is all put on the tab. This is all borrowed money.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question. There will be no dead people brought over to the United States.
Mr. DURBIN. Lucky 7,000.
I would like to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, if I might, is he aware of the companies that took advantage of the H-1B visas in 2006, which companies led in the number of H-1B visa awards?
Mr. GREGG. Well, I know the Senator from Illinois doesn't like the H-1B visa program, doesn't desire it to be expanded. I appreciate that and I understand we have a difference of opinion on that, and when he wants time, I will be happy to listen to his views again. But the fact is I happen to think, even though there may have been abuses in the program, I don't think they were at the core of the problem; that the primary energy of this program has been to create jobs in the United States by bringing smart people here.
We should be going across the world and saying to the best and the brightest----
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GREGG. I will in a second--and saying to the best and the brightest in the world, if you want to come to the United States and be a job center that adds to the value of our economy, we would like to have you come. We would like to consider you as being a participant under an H-1B visa program.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator inadvertently misstated my position. I know it was an accident. We are good friends. He is probably not aware I do support the H-1B.
But is the Senator aware that out of the top 10 companies that secured H-1B visas, 6 of those companies were Indian corporations; 5,000 visas to Infosys, an Indian corporation which is a body shop which moves H-1B engineers from India to the United States for a fee and then back to India to compete with American companies; WoodPro, which is the second largest company, 4,000 visas; and the first American company on the list for H-1B visas was Microsoft, with 3,000. So 9,000 had already been awarded to Indian companies, and the Government of India has said the H-1B is what they consider their outsourcing visa so they can send engineers to the United States to learn how to compete against American companies.
Does the Senator believe that is an abuse which should be addressed?
Mr. GREGG. Well, I would say to the Senator from Illinois that when you bring a person here who has the capacity to add to the strength of a Microsoft, for example, which is probably our single biggest international producer of economic activity for us as a nation, after maybe, I don't know, Wal-Mart, but it is a value-added company of the first level, and that when you bring somebody here who Microsoft feels adds to their ability to be more competitive, if that person decides to go back to India or back to China, well, that will be a choice they make.
But I suspect the odds are pretty good if that person has the opportunity to stay here under an H-1B visa program, they will probably end up staying here, or at least a large enough percentage of them will stay to add to our economy.
Now, what my amendment does----
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GREGG. I will in a second. What my amendment does, to make it clear, is it recaptures visas that are unused and it uses those visas now. It also specifically targets bringing in high-skilled nursing, people who are trained in the nursing facility area, which is very much in demand right now.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GREGG. Certainly. Of course.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator feel the option of job vacancies that may be filled by H-1B visa holders should first be offered to Americans to fill those jobs before an H-1B visa is given to a person coming from another country?
Mr. GREGG. I happen to believe the H-1B program is one of those programs that expands jobs in the United States, and by getting people here, you actually create jobs and you will create more jobs for Americans rather than lose jobs.
So, no, I don't happen to think you create a uniform rule that says nobody can come here if somebody else can take the job because then you are going to get the bureaucracy behind that which would basically bar those people from ever getting here. That becomes then a bureaucratic nightmare for building those jobs. It makes much more sense to bring these smart, intelligent people here, have them create jobs here, rather than leave them creating jobs in China and India.
Bill Gates speaks to this far more eloquently than I do. He speaks to most things more eloquently than I can because he can pronounce the words. But as a practical matter, he says these people are centers for the energy that creates the ideas, that creates the jobs that drive the economy. And if you leave them in China, if you leave them in India, as those types of individuals creating jobs, they become huge competitors to the entrepreneurship of America. If you bring them here, they become adjuncts to our economy.
I think the proposal makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of job creation and from the standpoint of making our economy stronger, so I will be offering it later in the day.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source