Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. There is no doubt about it. If you define wealthy as $5 million, $6 million, $7 million, you are not going to have to pay anything if you are handing down a business, and up to $4 million for just the normal family exemption. I say to my friend, another point I think we have not made strongly enough is that it is estimated by people on the Finance Committee that the Republican plan could discourage $250 billion in charitable contributions over 10 years. Why is that? We know people look at their estate planning and they look at different ways they are going to handle it. They say: OK, I will give so much to Uncle Sam, but I also want to give some to my favorite charities. The charities are up in arms about this. My friends on the other side of the aisle are often saying how important the role of charities are, and they are right; they are very important. Yet we have estimates that say the drain on charitable pursuits could go down $250 billion. That is not good news for those folks out there who run the community symphonies and the ballets and the various nonprofits. If we proceed with the Democratic alternative, we will be easing the burden on the people who need the burden eased; it is costing less than half of what the Republican plan will cost; it is saying to the wealthiest among us--and I am talking about the superwealthiest, as my friends put it--we want you to do well, but we know you understand the facts of life which are if we take this kind of money out of the Federal Government, we cannot do enough for our child care tax credits and for our afterschool programs. We cannot do enough for those in the middle class who are sending their kids to college. That costs a lot. The fact is, we have other things we can do that can bring much more relief to ordinary, average American families. I am going to close the way I opened, and that is to reiterate that I think this debate today has been a very important debate. It is true we are taking some time here, but many times people complain they do not see the differences between the parties; they do not understand what we stand for. If they did nothing more than to look at the Democratic alternative, which cures a problem but is fair in its reach, if they did nothing more than take a look at the things that we still need to do, the unfinished business around here, to help our people--if I have to hear one more story about a patient in California who tells me that she cannot afford her prescription drugs, when I know we have the resources; just look at the Republican proposal--if you just exempted those who need it, you would have enough left over to take care of the grandma and the grandpa and the person sending their kid to college and the person struggling to pay for child care; we would have enough to do the things we need to do. I hope the American people will take heed of this debate because in the end it is whose side are you on. I think at the end of the debate they can truly answer the question: Whose side are the Republicans on? The Donald Trumps, the Leona Helmsleys. Whose side are the Democrats on? Ordinary working, middle-class families are who we want to help. I yield to my friend for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, 308.

Mrs. BOXER. That is right.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. That is what we are essentially saying. We really are saying that. That is why I say the question, whose side are you on, is very relevant to this debate. We recognize the fact there has been inflation. We need to take another look at this estate tax. We are willing to make sure we help our family farmers. We want to help our small businesses. We want to help our individuals so their kids do not find themselves in a bind when they inherit the wealth from their families. We are willing to do that. We know President Clinton is willing to sign such a bill. We know he is going to veto the Republican version because he believes it is unfair to the middle class. He believes it is unfair. What we are saying is we can take care of the problem and help those who have kids in college or who have kids in day care. We can give a prescription drug benefit that is guaranteed through Medicare to our seniors. We can do all these things and still have enough to do some debt reduction and a little bit for afterschool programs. That is how expensive this repeal is.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly. We move also on the exemption for farms and small businesses, and we go up to $8 million per couple by 2010 on that ladder, as well. We are only talking about extremely large estates and a tiny percentage of people in this country. It is in the hundreds, really, who will wind up paying any type of estate tax--only those who have made it so big that, yes, maybe they can just give back a little bit to this country to pay for the defense of this country.

Mrs. BOXER. I spoke about that.

Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I believe so.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.

Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.

Mrs. BOXER. All the people who need the help will be helped under the Democratic alternative.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly right. We are simply looking at the wealthy people, who we believe are not being treated fairly because perhaps their wealth is tied up in a family farm, in a small business, in a private home, and we say, fair enough, we do not want to see your family be forced to sell these assets. We do not want that to happen. In our alternative, we take care of this. But we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible, that leaves enough to take care of the pressing needs of our people, which everybody seems to think we have-- prescription drugs, afterschool care, making sure that our kids get a decent quality education. Frankly, if we can just be moderate in our approach, we can do all of those things and come out on the side of ordinary Americans and be proud of ourselves. I only hope that as this debate moves forward, the Democrats have a right to offer our alternative, and that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle will recognize that if they join with us, we will have a bill that is fair, that is good, that can take care of our other needs, and that the President will sign into law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I was not aware it was 84 percent, but my friend has been a leader on the whole issue of dropouts. His point is well taken. We are looking at $850 billion over the next 20 years, just on this tax break, and they have others they will come up with, that are not capped, also, that will give to the top people. Yet they don't want to spend money on what will really make our society strong. The point the Senator makes is so correct because I remember in the days I was in the House with the Senator, tracking the costs of a high school dropout to society every year. It was hundreds of millions of dollars in the course of their lifetime. The Senator is exactly right, if we are talking about crime, if we are talking about drug abuse, if we are talking about alcohol abuse, if we are talking about people who are not productive, who cannot hold down jobs, who feel undervalued because they don't have a high school education. These are the competing priorities. It amazes me how our friends can come with so much passion for the Donald Trumps, for the Leona Helmsleys, for the people who make all this money, and not have even a speck of compassion, it seems to me, for ordinary people.

Mrs. BOXER. Exactly.

Mrs. BOXER. If we had another $200 million, that would help reduce this waiting list. We were not able to get any increase whatever out of this particular Congress this year.

Mrs. BOXER. Initially, it was little. Now we are simply asking for the President's level, which would be a couple hundred million dollars. I say to my friend, it is a lot less than this bill loses over the 20- year period.

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is absolutely correct. My friend is right. We tried so desperately in this Senate to simply get the funding for afterschool care up to the President's level. We failed. Where were my friends who say they are fighting to repeal the estate tax, to help ordinary people? Where were they when I had a chance to take another million kids off the waiting list and put them into afterschool care so they wouldn't join gangs? They could not find the funds for that. That is why I think this debate we are having today, I say to my assistant Democratic leader, is so important. It is all about priorities. The other side gets the chance to set the agenda. They overlook the people who need child care. They overlook the people who need afterschool. They do not want to do school construction. They do not want smaller class sizes. They do not want a real Patients' Bill of Rights. They do not want a guaranteed prescription drug benefit. Any don't even look at other tax breaks that are going to help people who send their kids to college with a tuition tax break. They come out here, with their hearts full, and fight for the wealthiest people in this country. It is a fact.

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I hope people have been listening to this debate today because, frankly, I think it has been an important one so far. There are many people who are students of politics, and sometimes they get lost in what one party stands for versus what another party stands for. I think when you listen to these debates on the floor, many times you won't get the differences. But I think today you will get the differences between the parties. I think that is important. Regardless of what side you agree with, I think you need to know where people stand. One of the absolute rights of the majority in the Senate--regardless of whether it is Republicans in charge, which is what we have now, or the Democrats, which we had when I first arrived here--is that the leaders have the very strong ability to set the agenda. That is one of the good things you get when you are in the leadership. You get to decide what you want to come to the floor. You get to take a look at the array of issues with which we deal, whether it is education or the environment or whether it is our children or our elderly or prescription drug benefits or Patients' Bill of Rights or pro-business legislation--whatever it is that you believe are the most important things. You get to decide which one of those things should come before the Senate. As our majority leader has said many times, we are pressed for time. We have very few days remaining in this legislative agenda. We are in an election year. In many ways that limits our ability because of the press of time and the need to go to conventions, et cetera. I think what this majority chooses to bring before us says a lot about who they are, whose side they are on, and in what they believe. The way my side of the aisle--the Democratic side of the aisle-- responds to that agenda says a lot about who we are, whose side we are on, what we believe in, and for what we are going to fight. Today is a perfect day to draw the contrast. Senator Lott has chosen to put before us a repeal of the estate tax. I think you need to look at what that really means. What does it cost us in hard, cold dollars to repeal the estate tax? The answer is almost $1 trillion over 20 years. Who in our society benefits from this repeal? What else could we do with that money if we decided to put this particular issue perhaps a little bit lower down on the priority list? Once you look at all of these questions, I believe you will get a clear distinction of where the Democratic Party is and where the Republican Party is. I think that is good. You may come out supporting the Democratic Party, thinking they are on your side, or you may come out supporting the Republican Party and say they are on your side. That is what politics is all about. That is what debating is all about. But most important to me is that there are these defining differences and there is one of those defining differences. Senator Burns spoke about how repealing the estate tax is going to help ordinary Americans, and how important it is to help ordinary Americans. I say to him that if he looks at the estate tax today, there are some inequities we can fix, and that we should fix that deal with family farms and smaller businesses and individuals. But to repeal the entire estate tax is helping those at the very top of the ladder. When I say top of the ladder, I mean those earning hundreds of millions of dollars and whose estates are worth hundreds of millions of dollars--perhaps into the billions of dollars. If that is considered helping the ordinary person, then I guess I don't get it because when I travel around my State, the ordinary people and the average person are working really hard every day. Do you know what they are bringing home? They are bringing home $30,000 a year, $40,000 a year. And in California where we have to earn more, we have couples working. If they really do well, they may bring in $60,000, $70,000, or $80,000 a year. They are struggling at that range to buy a home. They are struggling at that range to find child care that is affordable and that is quality. They are struggling to help their parents meet their medical bills, yes, their pharmaceutical costs or perhaps long-term care or college tuition. They are struggling. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that to couch this repeal of the estate tax as helping the average person is terribly misleading. Let me tell you why. Right now, we have an estate tax that essentially says to a couple: You are exempted if you are worth up to about $1 million. It is exactly $1.2 million. You are exempt. There is an argument to be made that is not high enough given the value of housing, and so on. I can see why that ought to be raised. The Democrats have an alternative. We raise it to $4 million for a couple so that in the future, children of couples who leave an estate of $4 million would have to pay nothing but only under $4 million. Do you know how many estates? That is a very small number of estates. Probably a percent and a half or so. We say to farmers and small businesses: Yes, we understand the problem. We are going to increase the exemption for you from $2.6 million for a couple to $8 million per couple by 2010. So we are saying that to the small farmer and the businesspeople who for $8 million or less there is no estate taxes. Yes, it is going to cost something for our proposal, if we were offering it, because right now we haven't even gotten an agreement from the majority that we can offer our alternative. But it would cost $61 billion over 10 years compared to $105 billion over 10 years on the Republican side. It would cost over the next 10 years $300 billion compared to $750 billion. The interesting thing is in our plan we essentially exempt almost everybody, except the very tiptop of the wealth scale. Yes, the Donald Trumps, the Leona Helmsleys, the Bill Gates of the world, who did so well in this the greatest country of all. Yes, their heirs may have to pay something to help the people who want the same chance they had. Because what do we do with the estate tax? It goes into defending our country. It goes into educating our people. It goes into health research to find a cure for Alzheimer's. The people at the very top of the ladder who I talk to say: You know, Barbara, you have a lot of work to do. One of them isn't worrying about me. I am good. I am OK. My heirs can pay a little bit. It is OK. But what do the Republicans do? They want to repeal the estate tax-- not just for the small family farms, as we want to, and the small businesses and make sure that if they are worth $8 million they don't have to pay anything. They want to protect the people who are worth $10 million, $12 million, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100, 200. Do I hear more? Yes, I do because there is no top. If you are worth $1 billion, your estate doesn't have to pay anything under their proposal. To stand here and say that is protecting ordinary people--the average American--is just not true. I would prefer, if this was an honest statement, to say that we are going to help the richest people in this country because that is what they are doing. That is what they are doing. This is an honest statement: Helping the richest people in this country who are worth $1 billion, $2 billion. You name it; there is no cap. To do that, it will cost $850 billion over the next 20 years. We can fix the problem with the estate tax for less than half of that, and we can do some wonderful things with the rest of the funds that we save. What can we do? Why don't we look at the Tax Code. Why don't we understand that people who send kids to college have a very big expense. They could use a little help with a tax deduction or a tax credit. I held a hearing on the crisis in quality child care. In California today--and I assume it is similar in Nevada--for every five kids who need quality child care, only one can get a slot. It is so expensive that people are saying they have to choose between paying their mortgage late and being assessed a late fee and paying child care.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for his eloquence on this point. Doesn't it really come down to on whose side are you? For whom do you come here to work? That is what my friend is saying. He is saying that if we did a fair alternative to the Republicans on this estate tax repeal, we can take care of those small family businesses, the farms, the people who have homes and have a lot of investment in them. We can essentially say only the very wealthiest, the ones who, frankly, owe a lot to the greatness of this Nation, the opportunity this Nation provides, their heirs would pay something and they would still wind up with millions and millions of dollars. My colleague is saying, maybe even with a little bit of courage around here, we could target those funds to those who deserve to have the same shot. I just held in my State of California a very important seminar, which was a learning experience for me, on the cost of child care and the availability of important early education. What I learned is that in California, only one in five kids who need quality child care even has a slot. For four out of five of the kids, there is not even a slot. And if one is lucky enough to have a chance at that slot, does my colleague know what it costs? Almost as much as it does to go to a private college. I applaud my friend and ask him this question: Isn't this motion to proceed really about whose side are we on around here? Are we on the side of the vast majority of the people who get up every day and work hard and want a little attention to their problems--prescription drugs, Patients' Bill of Rights, the things my friend has discussed, quality education, quality child care--or those who earn in the billions, and I say billions because that is really who is going to be impacted by this repeal. I ask my friend that question.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my collegues. employment and training grants for dislocated worker employment and training activities