Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I congratulate Mr. Bob Fulwider as he nears the end of his term as the 103rd chairman of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. Mr. Fulwider was elected to the IIABA's executive committee in 2002, and was installed as the association's chairman last September.

Founded in 1896, IIABA, or the Big ``I'' as it is better known, is the Nation's oldest and largest association of independent insurance agents and brokers, representing a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers, and their employees. During his term as chairman of the Big ``I'', Bob Fulwider has been a leader on a number of issues for the association including regulatory reform and natural disaster insurance. Perhaps most importantly, during this year's consideration of the farm bill and specifically its impact on crop insurance, Mr. Fulwider was a forceful advocate for his association who led with professionalism and determination.

Mr. Fulwider has over his lifetime built two financial and insurance planning service businesses throughout eastern Iowa including West Liberty and West Branch, IA. Mr. Fulwider is also a former national board director and a past president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Iowa, IIAI.

Mr. Fulwider has been honored with several national and state awards. He has been honored with two IIABA Presidential Citations--in 1987 and 1994. He was named IIAI Agent of the Year in 1993 and received the association's ``Mr. Chairman'' Award in the same year. He also received the Agent of the Year Award in 1990. He is the first honoree in the Iowa association's history to receive the award twice. In 2002, Mr. Fulwider was honored with the Sydney O. Smith Award, IIABA's highest individual government affairs honor. In 2003 he was named to the Iowa Insurance Hall of Fame.

In addition, Mr. Fulwider is extremely active in his community. After graduating from Iowa State University, he taught in Iowa public high schools and served on the Iowa State University faculty prior to entering the insurance business. Mr. Fulwider is past president of the Muscatine County Economic Development Council and training director and board member of the Iowa Council--Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Fulwider has served as Scoutmaster of his local troop for 25 years and has received numerous Scouting awards including the Silver Beaver. Additionally, he is active in his church and Masonic Lodge.

I want to thank Bob Fulwider for his work with the IIABA over the years and for his commitment to his profession, his community, and our state of Iowa. His efforts are greatly appreciated. I am proud to count Bob as both a constituent and a friend. I wish him, his wife Jan, and their family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, for the benefit of leaders' offices, after I am done speaking about the flood situation in Iowa, I have been asked by the leader to make a unanimous consent request in regard to E- Verify. So I want to notice the offices about what I am going to do. It will be down the road, in half an hour or so.

Mr. President, last night I came to the floor to ask for unanimous consent on the tax bill we referred to as the Midwest flood disaster tax relief package. I was denied unanimous consent to bring that up. I did not make a long justification for the necessity of doing that, but I wish to speak to that point now. I am not going to further ask unanimous consent the same as I did last night; I am just going to speak about why I did it last night and why it was essential.

There is one thing I want to put in the Record at this point, and it is in regard to one of the points that was made by the Senator from Illinois last night, Mr. Durbin, the Democratic whip. He said one of the reasons for denying my request for the tax relief package I am talking about for flood victims in the Midwest is because similar provisions were contained in S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, and that bill did not get 60 votes. Obviously, it didn't get 60 votes for the reason a lot of other bills have not gotten 60 votes on the floor of the Senate: We in the minority want to stay on the No. 1 problem affecting this country; that is, the high cost of gasoline and the energy crisis that is facing the Nation. We want the majority party to give us opportunities to offer amendments to increase the supply of energy in this country as opposed to paying $140 a barrel to buy oil and import it from overseas, giving money to nations that want to train terrorists to kill Americans. That is the reason S. 3335 did not get 60 votes. So we are technically on the Energy bill.

But one of the things he said about that bill was to leave the impression that S. 3335 did everything that needs to be done for the disaster relief in the Midwest, and it doesn't, and I made that point last night, so I am not going to repeat that.

But even if S. 3335 had passed, we had previously had a Statement of Administration Policy, and I am only going to quote one sentence from a longer Statement of Administration Policy that I am going to put in the Record, and that sentence is this: ``However, due to other objections to the bill, should it be presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.'' So I think that when we are under a situation where we have the trauma of floods and people being homeless because of the flooding situation in the Midwest, it doesn't do much good to pass a piece of legislation that is going to be vetoed by the White House anyway.

The point I was trying to make last night is that we shouldn't be adjourning for our summer August break and not taking care of things in the Midwest the very same way we took care of the situation for New Orleans caused by Katrina. Of course, the point is that the legislation we seek for the Midwest is the same as the legislation we sought and we actually accomplished for New Orleans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full Statement of Administration Policy from which I quoted.

Mr. President, before I speak to the point, just so you know, in Iowa the flood situation is very much in the headlines. I think one of the problems we are having in the Midwest, in getting Congress to pay attention to the problems that remain from the flooding of June, is that it is not constantly on television. It is not on television all the time. Of course, for 2 months, 3 months, the situation

in New Orleans was constantly on television, and Congress responded.

Mr. President, I see the whip here, and maybe I said something to which he wants to react. If he does, I would be happy to yield for that purpose.

Anyway, we have here in the Des Moines Register a headline that says, ``Storm Hit One in Five School Districts,'' and then it has reports on how much it is going to cost to fix the schools. We have another headline here that says, ``At Least $30 Million Needed to Repair Roads,'' as an example.

Then we have a statement that was printed in the Davenport newspaper that was written by Charlotte Eby. I am not going to quote the whole thing. I just want to speak to parts of it.

While Congress puts off consideration of the flood relief

bill, it looks like the Iowa legislature will be rolling up

its sleeves to help out Iowa flood victims.

It speaks about a growing sense that the Iowa legislature has to step in.

The delay of a Federal response by Congress could also push

back the State response, a development that left Iowans

angry.

It quotes the minority leader of the Iowa senate. Ron Wieck, Republican of Sioux City, said action cannot wait, and if that means a special session, he is for it. It doesn't quote him, but it says he is appalled that Congress will go home for the summer recess without passing a Federal flood relief package when floods left people in the Midwest homeless.

Then the last paragraph is not anybody's quote except the author's, Charlotte Eby:

Maybe the U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House

speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to walk the streets of Cedar

Rapids. They would think twice about heading home for their

August recess without lending a helping hand.

Then I have a quote from Congressman King, who went to Cedar Rapids, I think, as recently as Monday of this week. He says:

This is Katrina. I have walked into and out of those

buildings (in New Orleans) and I tell you, you wouldn't be

able to tell the difference.

He means telling the difference between the destruction that went on in New Orleans in the 2005 hurricane and what happened in Cedar Rapids in June when it was hit by a 500-year flood.

I do applaud Senator Obama because he was in Cedar Rapids yesterday campaigning, and he was also very attentive to the problems of Cedar Rapids in his town meeting. He said he came there and wanted to listen. I have not heard reports on what questions he received, what complaints he received. He may have been talking just to a friendly audience--I don't know. But he did say that he was there to listen, and I hope after he has listened to the situation in Cedar Rapids that he will tell friends in the Congress of the United States that we need to act quickly. I hope he would say we should have acted this week--which action now, of course, is impossible because we are breaking for our summer break.

I am here once again to discuss the plight of my fellow Iowans and many others throughout the Midwest following a series of deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods. It is a multiple disaster, tornadoes and floods, and not just floods. Iowa has 99 counties. Of those, 80 counties have been designated as a disaster area by FEMA.

When looking at a map of Iowa, it is much easier to count the few counties that are not disaster areas than the vast majority that are disaster areas. Every weekend except for this past weekend since we were in session, I have been back in Iowa to meet with people affected by the storm and to see the devastation for myself. As I noted last week, estimates of damage are in the billions of dollars and are climbing every day.

I thought nothing could match my frustration at seeing so many Iowans in such great need, but the fact that we have not been able to act upon both the appropriations bill, as well as this tax bill, has frustrated me. It seems because we do not see the storm on television all the time that there is an apparent lack of desire to help the Midwest recover from these deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods, quite contrary to the quick action that Congress took after Katrina.

Before I go further, I want to display a few pictures of the flooding. The first will show one of many railroad bridges that was severely damaged. Businesses such as the one in this picture rely on this railroad track, this bridge, to receive their inputs and move their goods. Throughout Iowa there are similar bridges that are damaged. Iowa railroads play a vital part in moving our agricultural products and goods, to do it efficiently, and obviously in a more energy-efficient way. This infrastructure is important for Iowa's interstate commerce and international trade.

I have another picture that shows the museum of art at the University of Iowa, Iowa City. This is the museum of art. I believe I have heard from the university officials that this building is going to have to be torn down.

The next picture shows flooding along the Iowa River. You can see the tops of buildings. These are homes and businesses of people who just want their lives back. They are not asking for anything extraordinary or excessive, but they are in need of help to recover and rebuild. They are, in a sense, asking for the same help that New Orleans got after Katrina.

I would like to use the phrase ``so that they can get things back to normal.'' However, it is very difficult to use that phrase. It will take years before Iowa recovers, and it will not be the same, although we will still be a very strong State.

I can share, for example, the story of my hometown of New Hartford, a community of 670 just west of Waterloo, IA. An F5 tornado ripped through this area, destroying a whole section of town. The floods then came and inundated the town. Out of 270 homes in New Hartford, IA, 240 had damage or were destroyed. Businesses were also harshly affected. Many of them are trying to decide if they want to stay in business or if they can afford to stay in business. Several have already decided not to reopen.

The town I lived around all my life as a farm boy--and still as a farmer--will never be back to normal. It won't ever be the same. I think we will have a thriving community but, quite frankly, it won't be the same.

The next chart shows you a picture of downtown Cedar Rapids. I am talking about a 500-year flood. The previous flood record was about 19 feet. Levees could take up to 22 feet. But I think this flood got as high as 31 feet and has been referred to as a 500-year flood.

As you look at this picture, think of all the homes and businesses that are severely damaged and destroyed. Downtown Cedar Rapids is not going to be the same. Since Cedar Rapids and other places in Iowa are not popular as vacation spots as are other cities, you probably haven't seen or heard much of the devastation except for the week of television when it was actually underwater. I can assure everyone that the people of Iowa and the Midwest deserve the same consideration that was given to the people of New York after 9/11 and the people of the gulf coast after the hurricanes of 2005.

Last week I touched on how the response to the Midwest disasters has been different from the response to other disasters. I would like to elaborate on that point. These are some of the same points I made last night, but I only took about 2 minutes to make these points.

On August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the gulf coast, causing widespread devastation. The Congress was in recess at the time; however, the Republican Congress and the Senate Finance Committee sprang into action immediately at the staff level, even before we got back the day after Labor Day. We immediately started working with the Governors of the affected States and set out goals that we hoped to accomplish when we finally came back into session.

On September 28, 2005, less than a month----

I ask unanimous consent to continue my speech for as much time as I might consume.

Yes. About 7 or 8 minutes, I think.

On September 28, less than a month after Hurricane Katrina, I chaired a hearing entitled, ``Hurricane Katrina: Community Rebuilding Needs and Effectiveness of Past Proposals.'' Governor Blanco of Louisiana, Governor Barbour of Mississippi, and Governor Riley of Alabama all participated.

On October 6, 2005, I chaired another hearing titled ``The Future of the Gulf Coast Using Tax Policy to Help Rebuild Businesses and Communities and Support Families.'' Treasury Secretary Snow testified at that hearing.

Congress also passed tax legislation very quickly. The Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 was signed by the President on September 23, 2005. This unoffset package cost more than $6 billion. That package was followed up by the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, which was signed by President Bush in December of 2005. This unoffset package was scored to cost around $8.6 billion. Neither of these packages were subject to a rollcall vote in the Senate, but both were passed by unanimous consent.

I want to make it clear that we did the right thing by setting aside our planned agenda to help the people affected by hurricanes as quickly as we could. Some of the people still living on the gulf coast still need our help, and we should be helping them, and some of these tax provisions in what we call the extenders package continue some of that help. Passing these bills without offsets was also the right thing to do. As any of my staffers can tell you, I am very careful with the money. However, when people are suffering from a massive natural disaster, it is no time to be a cheapskate.

I am also very frustrated by the desire of some House Democrats to offset this tax relief package for Iowans and other Midwesterners because that is a double standard. We did not demand offsets when we were trying to help New Orleans. I am not asking for anything more than the same consideration that was given to the victims of other major disasters.

I have learned lessons from previous tax disaster packages. We learned we need to tailor the relief so more is targeted specifically for those who suffered damages and really need the assistance. Therefore, the package I introduced, that I tried to get unanimous consent on last night, called the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008, provides targeted assistance to families and businesses in 10 States throughout the central United States to help those who suffered damage from these deadly storms and floods, to help them rebuild their lives.

The estimated cost of the bill is less than $4 billion. We need to be prudent with our Federal money, and as I stated, my tax package is targeted to those who suffered loss and is a reasonable cost to help these victims of the storms and floods in the 10 States that were affected. From that standpoint, that is something we have learned in the last 3 years from the package that was passed after Katrina.

There were people who took advantage of some provisions who were not harmed by the natural disaster, so we have tailored this bill so that only people who were harmed by the flood situation are the ones we will help. We had Senators Harkin, Bond, McCaskill, Coleman, Klobuchar, Durbin, Obama, Roberts, Brownback, Lugar, and Bayh all as original cosponsors of this bill. In the House, the Iowa Congressional Delegation introduced a companion bill, and the list of the original cosponsors to this bill shows this is a very bipartisan package. We all recognize the need for targeted relief for the Midwest. The problem seems to be the ability to get the bill up in a timely fashion like we did in the case of New Orleans. I have been hearing that the Democratic leadership in the House is insisting that the package be offset, which is completely different than how we responded to disasters in the past when we didn't worry about offsets. Normally when we have emergencies, they are emergencies; you get the bill passed to help the people who need it.

Just yesterday the Senate voted against cloture on an extenders package put forward by Senate Democrats. It purported to include disaster relief. I am taken aback that the Senate Democrats would politicize the suffering of so many people just to try to get an extenders bill passed. The disaster relief in that bill was watered down. It provided substantially less assistance for Iowa and the other States in the central portion of the United States.

The Senator from Illinois is here, and I hope he hears that because I want to emphasize that that bill is quite a bit different and doesn't do as much good. It is not targeted. It is not helping people who need to be helped right now.

Its authors were apparently motivated by the twin misconceptions that the Midwestern disasters are not as severe as they really are and that we should undertake generic tax relief at the expense of the Midwest.

When I say the proponents of the Democratic extender package think the disaster is not as severe as they are, I say that noting that their package provided less assistance to the Midwest than my bipartisan tax- targeted disaster tax bill did provide.

The Democratic disaster package also had a higher revenue score than my package. I told you we tried to scale this back so we did not make the same mistakes we did in the case of Katrina, where a lot of people who did not get hurt by the disaster were able to take advantage of it--not our intention. But because we probably hastened it through to get help to Katrina victims, some people took advantage of it.

We tailored this so only people who have a disaster can benefit from it. It had a higher revenue score, as I said, than the Democratic alternative. They included the whole country instead of disasters that have not occurred. I am not arguing that we should look at putting generic assistance into the Tax Code to assist States when Federal disasters are declared the future. It seems to me that is a worthy thing for us to be discussing.

However, I do not think it is right to slow down the help for the Midwest because you want a broader national policy. People in the Midwest and Iowa are suffering now and have been for almost 2 months. They have experienced a severe event that was well above the 500-year flood level. This is an extraordinary disaster. We need the help right now.

The proper time to make a thorough a review of how we generally respond to disasters should not come at the expense of a specific massive natural disaster that has occurred and the people need immediate assistance. The author of the disaster package put forward in the Democrat's extender bill may have meant well, but I cannot help but feel that Iowa and the Midwest would be getting the short end of the stick.

Their disaster package also included a provision that only benefitted New York, at a cost of more than $1 billion. This is the second-largest provision in that disaster relief package, when people are literally trying to rebuild their homes, their businesses, and lives in the Midwest. It is simply insulting and disgraceful to use the misery of others to play politics and gamesmanship at a time when we should be able to put politics aside, as we did in September 2005, to help people going through extraordinarily difficult times.

However, there are apparently some who, because we do not see this on television or because they have other agendas, want to take advantage to get more. At the same time, I am trying to get help for my constituents.

The correct question to put is simply: How can I help?

The best course of action would be for the House and Senate to pass the Midwestern Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 and do it as we did in September 2005; do it by unanimous consent.

We can discuss general disaster response as well, but right now the people of Iowa are suffering and the Midwest is suffering as well. We have a moral obligation to help them as we helped the people and citizens of New York after 9/11 and the gulf coast when they needed help.

If anyone honestly believes Iowans do not deserve our help, then please come down to the floor, state your views, talk about it. I will encourage anyone who has doubts about the severity of this disaster to do like Senator Obama did yesterday, come to Iowa and I will be glad to take you around when you can come.

I am ready to yield the floor, but I had previously made a statement that

I was going to make a unanimous consent request on the immigration bill. I am not going to do that.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, yes, I will take that opportunity. I hope I get to have an opportunity to offer a unanimous consent request as well for our side of the aisle, if you want to be completely fair. In the last few weeks in this body, we have not necessarily been fair.

So let me take advantage of the majority whip's invitation to respond. First of all, he knows, because he is in the leadership, that I gave the majority party information, at least 48 hours ago, and maybe 72 hours ago, that this week I was going to seek a unanimous consent request, and all day yesterday we were denied that opportunity, even at the point before adjournment and my speaking to Leader Reid about when can I do my unanimous consent request.

You know what I was told? After the adjournment resolution. So do not say

I did not make an attempt to do it and do not say you did not know about it. If you wanted to cooperate with us, we could have had that cooperation. But there does not seem to be that sort of comity in the Senate anymore.

Another point you made was that I had a chance to work for a tax relief package for flood victims. The bill you voted for and you asked unanimous consent on did less for your constituents than the legislation we had been working on for 2 weeks.

Then, he brings up the point about not working through committee. Well, most of the work on this bill has been so we can get a consensus package, working with even Chairman Rangel's staff, so it is not only bipartisan but bicameral, so we can put together something and get it done very quickly in the same consensus manner that we were able to help the victims of New Orleans.

Then, the other reason: Why would the Senator from Illinois cosponsor our bill if it was not the right bill for his State and for the Midwest and for this disaster?

We have always tried to do things as quickly as can be done when people hurt. That is why when we got back after Katrina--on Tuesday or Wednesday--we had $10 billion that we were going to give to New Orleans. Before the end of the week was up, it was $60 billion, in 2005.

Now, do you think the committee had an opportunity to work its will on that? No. They were responding to need. Don't you think your constituents hurt across from Burlington? They may be still underwater. I do not know. A couple weeks ago, they were when I was talking on the radio station. In Burlington you had constituents who still had just the roofs of houses showing. Don't you think they need help right now?

So I think, first of all, procedural-wise, either the majority whip does not know what is going on when I notify his cloakroom that I am going to offer it or else he does not care or he wants to mislead.

The second thing is, he is not voting for the bills and pushing the bills that will help his constituents the most, and we still do not have the relief.

So that is my response to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Bennett, I object.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I want to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill to which he is probably going to object. But I want him to know that people on this side of the aisle want to move things along.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the bill be held at the desk pending further House action.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hubbard Act.

This important legislation helps our service men and women in uniform who are the ``sole survivor''--only surviving child in a family in which one of their family members has died or been killed due to their military service. Under the current ``sole survivor'' policy of the Armed Forces, there are no standard benefits available to those who separate from the Armed Forces under this policy.

The legislation corrects a flaw, allowing sole survivors to qualify for a standard set of Federal benefits that are generally available to other veterans.

I would like to comment on the bill's other provision. Section 9 would repeal the dollar limitations on contributions to funeral trusts. In the Senate, this provision was authored by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch. It has been included to offset the additional spending associated with the bill's sole survivor provisions.

As I have consistently said in the past, the Senate Finance Committee is not a piggy bank for the other committees to dip into to pay for their new

spending proposals. My preference would have been to have the sole survivor provisions in this legislation funded by spending reductions by the committees of jurisdiction.

I have been told that option was not available for this bill.

The funeral trust provision under Section 9, is a taxpayer favorable provision. It is a purely voluntary provision. It helps people who want to put more money aside in trust to provide for their funeral.

Unlike prior revenue raisers proposed by the majority that would impose tax increases on unsuspecting Americans, this revenue offset is strongly supported by those who would pay the additional tax.

As I said previously, my strong preference would be to not use the tax code to pay for higher spending. However, there is strong support for the funeral trust provision and it is favorable to taxpayers.

Mr. President, before I speak, I have been asked to propound a unanimous consent request on speaking orders: 4 minutes for Senator Grassley, 4 minutes for Senator Coburn, and whatever time Senator Harkin would consume.

Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of a unanimous consent request for the Midwestern flood tax relief bill sponsored by the Senators of several Midwestern States, including Senator Harkin of my State, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama of Illinois, and other midwestern Senators.

I rise to seek fairness and equity for people in the Midwest who have been hurt by floods, and I would say fairness and equity as measured by how Congress responded to the natural disaster of Katrina, New Orleans, et cetera.

I remember back in September of 2005, after that terrible catastrophe of August 29, what happened in New Orleans. Within the week after we were in session, after Labor Day, we had appropriated $60 billion. Within 3 weeks after that--I was chairman of the Finance Committee--we voted out of committee a tax equity bill that changed provisions of the Tax Code to encourage employers and businesses and people to stay there and weather it out.

What we did, we did without asking any questions. And now we seek the same tax relief for the States of the Midwest that have had the same type of catastrophe happen to them. I would measure catastrophe by a 500-year flood in the city of Cedar Rapids, IA, which won't be the same as it was prior to the flood.

So we have entered this legislation for consideration. We have worked it out with a lot of people who were involved in it. We worked closely with Senator Baucus's staff, with the staff of Ways and Means, trying to satisfy

everybody. We think we have a consensus.

Here it is, 6 weeks after the floods hit, and Congress has not acted. Congress should act. In other words, shouldn't the people hurt by the natural disaster of the Midwest have the same consideration as the people of New Orleans and those with other catastrophes? We are not getting it. It is very clear that when our disaster is not on television for 2 months in a row, like the disaster of New Orleans was on television for 2 months in a row, somehow Congress is absentminded about what happened in the Midwest.

So we face things like arguments from staff of some of the people in the other body that, well, this disaster wasn't anything like what happened in Katrina or you hear things like, well, we need to offset this bill. When I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the people in New Orleans were hurting, we did not ask for offsets. We did not play political games with the legislation we eventually passed, like some efforts this Midwest Tax Flood Relief Act ought to be connected with extenders or with AMT or something like that. We got the job done. We didn't worry about it.

I come before this body tonight to ask for consideration of this legislation.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3322

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that the bill be held at the desk pending House action on the companion measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.

Mr. President, I point out that what the Senator from Illinois described is an amendment that would not have responded to the Midwest in exactly the same way as we responded to Katrina. It would not have been as beneficial. It also did not contain the same 25 provisions we did for New Orleans, which were in that tax bill to help them.

I think we have a situation where we ought to respond the same way we did for Katrina. We are not doing it because the disaster in the Midwest is as bad. When we thought about Katrina, we didn't argue with other people about going back and taking care of disasters that previously happened. We took care of what was before us.

Right now, the flood of the Midwest is before us, and we ought to have the same equity and fairness that, when we had a Republican Congress, we gave to New Orleans. Whether we have a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, that should not make any difference. We are being treated differently when the Democrats control the Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, intend to object to proceeding to any unanimous consent agreement pertaining to the nomination of Mr. James A. Williams to be the Administrator of the General Services Administration.

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs voted to report the Williams nomination favorably to the full Senate on July 30, 2008.

I oppose this nomination because of Mr. Williams's actions in connection with the renegotiation of a contract with Sun Microsystems in August-September 2006. I have outlined my concerns about this matter in detail in a speech on the floor on July 24, 2008. That statement appears on pages S7272-S7274 of the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues that I have requested to be notified of any unanimous consent agreement that would allow for the consideration of the nomination of Mr. James A. Williams to be the Administrator of the General Services Administration, GSA.

I intend to reserve my right to object to any such request.

I expressed my opposition to this nomination in a floor statement on July 24, 2008, and in a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the same date. My letter to Chairman Lieberman appears in the Record on page S7273 at the conclusion of my speech.

My opposition to this nomination is based on the results of an in- depth oversight investigation conducted by my staff in 2006-2007. This investigation examined the actions of Mr. Williams, former Administrator Doan, and several other senior agency officials in the contract negotiations with Sun Microsystems, Inc. in May-September 2006. There were: No. 1. allegations of fraud on the Sun contract that was being renegotiated; No. 2. Mr. Williams and Ms. Doan had knowledge of the alleged fraud; and No. 3. allegations that Mr. Williams and Ms. Doan had improperly interfered in the ongoing negotiations and put pressure on the contracting officer to sign what was considered a bad contract. I presented the findings of this investigation in a floor statement on October 17, 2007, which appears on pages S12952-12954 of the Record.

At Mr. Williams's hearing on July 25, the committee did ask him some tough questions about his knowledge of the alleged fraud and his role in the Sun contract negotiations. However, Mr. Williams's response was less than complete, and there was little or no followup by the committee. I am preparing followup questions for Mr. Williams, asking him for more details.

All the evidence developed in my oversight investigation points to the existence of serious unresolved issues involving Mr. Williams role in this matter. Based on what I know today, I do not believe that Mr. Williams should be promoted to high office. He placed the well-being of the GSA before the interests of all the hard-working American taxpayers, who he was sworn to protect. There needs to be some accountability in the Federal contracting system for blunders and missteps during the Sun contract negotiations.

I may have more to say on this subject at a later date.

Mr. President, I have been examining several doctors at universities across the country to see if they are complying with the financial disclosure policies of the National Institutes of Health. I ask unanimous consent to have my latest letters to Stanford University and to the National Institutes of Health printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I view my role as working to ensure the safety and well- being of the more than 80 million Americans who are beneficiaries of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These programs spend a lot of taxpayers' money on prescription drugs and medical devices, and that money should be spent on drugs and devices that are safe and effective.

Over the last four years I have conducted extensive oversight of the Food and Drug Administration. I have reviewed and questioned how the FDA handles the pre-market review and post-market surveillance of drugs, biologics, devices and veterinary medicines to assess whether or not the agency is fulfilling its mission to protect the public health. As a result of my oversight activities, I identified serious problems at the FDA that included the quashing of scientific opinion within the agency, delays in informing the public of emerging safety problems, too cozy a relationship between the FDA and the industries it is supposed to regulate, and a failure to be adequately transparent and accountable to the public.

Last year, when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee were working on FDA legislation, I encouraged them to take that opportunity to reform, improve, and re-establish the FDA as the gold standard for drug safety. I believed the FDA needed additional tools, resources, and authorities to do its work.

The Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act last September. While we did not fix a fundamental problem at the FDA that's been shown through my investigations over the last few years, the new legislation did provide additional tools in FDA's toolbox to better protect the American people. It was a positive step toward restoring the public's trust in the FDA.

Today, I am here to talk about another FDA bill. Last summer, I started examining FDA's program for inspection of foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. I expressed concerns to the FDA regarding, among other things, inspection funding, emerging exporters, and weaknesses in the inspection process.

An increasing amount of the drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) Americans use are being manufactured in foreign countries. Yet, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in November 2007, the Food and Drug Administration does not know how many foreign establishments are subject to inspection and the agency conducts relatively few inspections each year.

From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, the FDA conducted fewer than 1,400 inspections of foreign pharmaceutical facilities, often focused in countries with few reported quality concerns. In China, the world's largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients, and where export safety appears to be a growing problem, only 11 inspections were conducted during FY 2007, compared to 14 in Switzerland, 18 in Germany, and 24 in France, all countries with advanced regulatory infrastructures. I was troubled by these numbers.

Then came the wake-up call in January of this year. FDA announced that Baxter International Inc. temporarily suspended production of its blood thinner heparin because of an increase in the reports of adverse events that may be associated with its drug. It was discovered that the active ingredient in heparin was contaminated and that the ingredient was produced at a facility in the People's Republic of China. Soon more recalls were announced. After several months, the FDA established a link between the contaminant found in heparin and the serious adverse events seen in patients that were given heparin. FDA's investigation of the source of the contamination highlighted significant weaknesses in oversight of the production and supply chain.

With limited inspection resources, the FDA is charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients produced in nearly every corner of the globe. To make matters worse, as the FDA's challenges multiply, its resources for foreign inspections are shrinking. It is troubling that the FDA is grossly under-resourced at a time when foreign production of drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients is growing at record rates. Adding to the difficulty of this task, it appears that many foreign pharmaceutical plants register with the FDA as a means to bolster their own standing and with no intention of exporting products to the United States market.

That is why I am introducing the Drug and Device Accountability Act today with Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

This legislation would augment FDA's resources through the collection of registration and inspection fees. The bill also expands the agency's authority for ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices, including foreign manufactured drugs and devices, by expanding FDA's authority to inspect foreign manufacturers and importers, allowing the FDA to issue subpoenas, and allowing the FDA to detain a device or drug when its inspectors have reason to believe the product is adulterated or misbranded.

In addition, the bill includes a provision that expands on an amendment I filed last spring to the Senate bill, S. 1082 Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. That amendment provided for a certification by drug manufacturers that the information submitted as part of a new drug or supplemental application is accurate.

Under the Drug and Device Accountability Act, individuals responsible for the submission of a drug or device application or a report related to safety or effectiveness would have to certify that the application or report is compliant with applicable regulations and not false or misleading. Civil as well as criminal penalties could be imposed for false or misleading certifications. I believe this is an important provision, especially in light of the troubling findings presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. Based on a review of documents from recent litigation involving the pain medication Vioxx, the authors of those articles concluded that the maker of Vioxx was not forthcoming in its communication with the Food and Drug Administration about the mortality risks seen in clinical trials of Vioxx conducted in patients with Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment.

Last year, Congress passed legislation that would strengthen FDA's ability to act on emerging safety problems. Now we need legislation that will enhance FDA's oversight of drugs and devices if the Agency is to ensure that America's increasingly foreign-produced drug and device supply is both safe and effective.

Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I view my role as working to ensure the safety and well- being of the more than 80 million Americans who are beneficiaries of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These programs spend a lot of taxpayers' money on prescription drugs and medical devices, and that money should be spent on drugs and devices that are safe and effective.

Over the last four years I have conducted extensive oversight of the Food and Drug Administration. I have reviewed and questioned how the FDA handles the pre-market review and post-market surveillance of drugs, biologics, devices and veterinary medicines to assess whether or not the agency is fulfilling its mission to protect the public health. As a result of my oversight activities, I identified serious problems at the FDA that included the quashing of scientific opinion within the agency, delays in informing the public of emerging safety problems, too cozy a relationship between the FDA and the industries it is supposed to regulate, and a failure to be adequately transparent and accountable to the public.

Last year, when the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee were working on FDA legislation, I encouraged them to take that opportunity to reform, improve, and re-establish the FDA as the gold standard for drug safety. I believed the FDA needed additional tools, resources, and authorities to do its work.

The Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act last September. While we did not fix a fundamental problem at the FDA that's been shown through my investigations over the last few years, the new legislation did provide additional tools in FDA's toolbox to better protect the American people. It was a positive step toward restoring the public's trust in the FDA.

Today, I am here to talk about another FDA bill. Last summer, I started examining FDA's program for inspection of foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing plants. I expressed concerns to the FDA regarding, among other things, inspection funding, emerging exporters, and weaknesses in the inspection process.

An increasing amount of the drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) Americans use are being manufactured in foreign countries. Yet, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in November 2007, the Food and Drug Administration does not know how many foreign establishments are subject to inspection and the agency conducts relatively few inspections each year.

From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007, the FDA conducted fewer than 1,400 inspections of foreign pharmaceutical facilities, often focused in countries with few reported quality concerns. In China, the world's largest producer of active pharmaceutical ingredients, and where export safety appears to be a growing problem, only 11 inspections were conducted during FY 2007, compared to 14 in Switzerland, 18 in Germany, and 24 in France, all countries with advanced regulatory infrastructures. I was troubled by these numbers.

Then came the wake-up call in January of this year. FDA announced that Baxter International Inc. temporarily suspended production of its blood thinner heparin because of an increase in the reports of adverse events that may be associated with its drug. It was discovered that the active ingredient in heparin was contaminated and that the ingredient was produced at a facility in the People's Republic of China. Soon more recalls were announced. After several months, the FDA established a link between the contaminant found in heparin and the serious adverse events seen in patients that were given heparin. FDA's investigation of the source of the contamination highlighted significant weaknesses in oversight of the production and supply chain.

With limited inspection resources, the FDA is charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients produced in nearly every corner of the globe. To make matters worse, as the FDA's challenges multiply, its resources for foreign inspections are shrinking. It is troubling that the FDA is grossly under-resourced at a time when foreign production of drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients is growing at record rates. Adding to the difficulty of this task, it appears that many foreign pharmaceutical plants register with the FDA as a means to bolster their own standing and with no intention of exporting products to the United States market.

That is why I am introducing the Drug and Device Accountability Act today with Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

This legislation would augment FDA's resources through the collection of registration and inspection fees. The bill also expands the agency's authority for ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices, including foreign manufactured drugs and devices, by expanding FDA's authority to inspect foreign manufacturers and importers, allowing the FDA to issue subpoenas, and allowing the FDA to detain a device or drug when its inspectors have reason to believe the product is adulterated or misbranded.

In addition, the bill includes a provision that expands on an amendment I filed last spring to the Senate bill, S. 1082 Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. That amendment provided for a certification by drug manufacturers that the information submitted as part of a new drug or supplemental application is accurate.

Under the Drug and Device Accountability Act, individuals responsible for the submission of a drug or device application or a report related to safety or effectiveness would have to certify that the application or report is compliant with applicable regulations and not false or misleading. Civil as well as criminal penalties could be imposed for false or misleading certifications. I believe this is an important provision, especially in light of the troubling findings presented in the Journal of the American Medical Association in April. Based on a review of documents from recent litigation involving the pain medication Vioxx, the authors of those articles concluded that the maker of Vioxx was not forthcoming in its communication with the Food and Drug Administration about the mortality risks seen in clinical trials of Vioxx conducted in patients with Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment.

Last year, Congress passed legislation that would strengthen FDA's ability to act on emerging safety problems. Now we need legislation that will enhance FDA's oversight of drugs and devices if the Agency is to ensure that America's increasingly foreign-produced drug and device supply is both safe and effective.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes 10 seconds.

The American people rightly wonder why these popular expiring tax relief provisions can't be passed by the Senate on their merits alone. Why can't we get there and ``get 'er done''? Part of the problem is that the committee and floor process have been disregarded by the Senate Democratic leadership. The debate and exchange of ideas, which is the essence of the Senate, has been bottled up. The Senate process is being truncated.

For the first time in this decade, since 2001, the Finance Committee members have not been allowed to exercise their right in committee markup with respect to these issues. With one exception--the 2002 stimulus bill--for the first time in this decade, Senate Members have not had the opportunity to debate and amend the extenders in a real Senate floor process. For the first time in this decade, Senators in the minority are being presented with a top-down deal, crafted in the dark corners of Democratic leaders' offices of the House and Senate.

The irony of all of this is compelling. Almost 2 years ago today, we faced an attempt to end run the natural order of the committee and floor process by the bicameral Republican leadership of the House and Senate. I referred to it at that time as a wrongheaded effort that was doomed to fail--even when it came

from my own party. It envisioned a unicameral tax writing committee that ignored the rights and privileges of Members of both parties. I used sharp words and directed them at my side's leadership in the House and Senate. I am sure some on my side thought I had gone a bit overboard in criticizing the Republican leadership at that time.

Then the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions chairman, Senator Enzi, stood with me. Some of my friends on the Democratic side spoke up about the harm the leadership was doing to the rights of the Members of the Senate.

May I have 1 more minute?

Ironically, today we find the Democratic leadership attempting to do much the same thing. Like the failed trifecta jam to which I referred, today's jam will not work.

It is part of a larger problem with the Senate because we are not going through the regular order at the committee and the floor level. Issues are building up, tempers are flaring, and, most importantly, nothing is getting done. The Senate is constipated. This legislative body needs a function, a laxative. Legislation needs to circulate through this body in the usual form like food through your body. We need real debate, real amendments, and we need an informal bipartisan process that leads to an agreement that can pass the House and the Senate.

I have my pencil sharpened, my notepad out. I am ready to engage in our usual bipartisan process with my Democratic friend, Chairman Baucus. I am hopeful that the Democratic leadership will relieve the constipation on the tax extenders legislation. The Finance Committee and the Senate need to function just like our intestinal system functions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we finished a fourth vote on the tax extenders bill. As the great baseball philosopher, Yogi Berra, said: ``It's deja vu all over again.''

Here we are getting ready to vote and just finishing a vote for the fourth time on the motion to proceed to the House tax extenders bill. As I said, it is deja vu all over again and yet again.

The vote, I believe, was 51 to 43, so very short of what it takes to get business done in the Senate, which is to work a bipartisan agreement so we have more than 60 votes to get business done. This is a no-brainer, in this particular instance, to get an extenders bill and the AMT.

The futility of this exercise, which is motivated purely by partisan politics, makes this vote as silly as a ``Three Stooges'' episode. Instead of wasting time on such a silly exercise, the Senate Democratic leadership should be working on negotiating a bipartisan deal with Senate Republicans that can be signed into law by the President. The American people do not want another futile vote on tax extenders.

They want a bill that will be signed into law. That would provide the American people with the tax relief that is needed.

The extenders vote we had has already failed before. Albert Einstein famously stated the definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The Senate Democratic leadership has already done the same thing too many times and, of course, today sought to do it again. This is a waste of everyone's time. Everyone can see through the Democratic leadership's strategy for what it is: a partisan political exercise, designed solely to get 30- second sound bites for political ads.

Let's stop this nonsense. Let's work out a bipartisan compromise on the tax extenders bill. Let's reach agreement in a form that can be signed into law by the President. The President made it very clear today that he is not willing to sign what we had before us a few minutes ago into law. Of course, what I am asking is that the Senate Republican leadership has been trying to urge the Senate majority to move in this direction.

The Senate Republican leadership has made numerous offers to the Senate Democratic leadership to try to find a way to break the logjam on tax extenders. So far, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been unwilling to enter into a bipartisan agreement on a tax extenders bill that even attempts to address legitimate concerns of the minority party in this body.

As the Senate Democratic leadership engages in pure partisan politics by bringing up the tax extenders bill for yet another vote, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is probably grinning like a Cheshire cat, thinking of all the 30-second campaign ads they will be able to make. However, the people of New York are not grinning because they are not getting the benefit of any of these tax relief provisions. All the tax relief provisions that are very important to the American people, including even to the people of New York, are being held hostage as part of the political game of the Democratic Senate leadership having vote after vote on cloture to stop debate for whatever reason.

Some of these important tax relief provisions are the alternative minimum tax patch, the deduction for the State and local sales tax, the deduction of tuition expenses, and the deduction for expenses of school teachers. How is anybody going to find fault with the fact that these provisions should have been done a long time ago? In fact, the AMT patch should have been done because, since the first of the year, taxpayers who have had to file quarterly tax payments have been violating the law if they haven't taken into consideration that there are 24 million American families right now hit by the alternative minimum tax. That figure would include 3.1 million New York families. The provision for the State and local sales tax would help almost 11 million families. Also, the deduction for expenses for tuition and fees would help over 4.6 million families. In addition, the deduction for expenses of school teachers would help 3.4 million Americans. These hard-working taxpayers are more important than a 30-second sound bite to be used in the next campaign because of political games that are being played.

The bottom line is, when we have 24 million people being hit by AMT, 4.6 million people on the deduction of college expenses, and 3.4 million people hit by increased taxes because school teachers will not be able to deduct supplies from their income taxes, real Americans are being hurt while political games are being played, when everybody in this body knows the only way we get things done is in a bipartisan way.

The biggest divide between Republicans and Democrats regarding tax extenders relates to the issue of offsets, also known as revenue raisers, or I think we ought to be more intellectually honest and call these tax increases. In other words, tax increases on Americans generally to provide the extension of some policy that has been on the books for decades.

My party's position has been clear on this issue. We are perfectly willing to use offsets that make sense from a tax policy perspective to pay for new tax policy. However, tax relief provided by extending existing tax policy or expiring provisions, or somebody may call these sunset provisions, we do not feel they should have to be offset. We should not be raising taxes in order to pay for the extension of existing tax policy.

One reason I care about this issue is that there is currently a bias in favor of using this as an excuse to bring in more money to increase the size of Government. The pay-as-you-go rules apply to expiring tax provisions which are not built into the revenue base. On the other hand, if you have sunset of appropriations, these are built into the spending baseline. Therefore, in order to extend expiring tax provisions, the pay-go rules require an offset, and that happens to be a big tax increase. Whereas, if you have extensions of expiring appropriations provisions--in other words, spending provisions--they do not need to be paid for by decreased spending in other areas because they are assumed in the spending baseline. Therefore, pay-as-you-go rules apply to the extension of expiring tax provisions, but in an intellectually, inconsistent way do not apply to the extension of expiring spending provisions.

This inconsistent treatment makes no sense-- intellectually inconsistent; I say to the taxpayers of America, intellectually dishonest. It is biased to create ever larger Government. The money the American people earn, after all, is their money. We should only take the money from them that it truly takes to run the Government. We should not be using sunset tax provisions as an excuse to increase taxes, and that is all it is.

In addition, the Democrats' desire to use permanent offsets to pay for an extension of temporary tax provisions is extremely problematic. It creates a situation where the permanent offsets that can be agreed to on a bipartisan basis--in other words, the low-hanging fruit all gets used to pay for the extension of temporary tax provisions.

Under the Democrats' tax side only, pay-go obsession, once all the low-hanging fruit is used--and we are rapidly approaching that point-- then the choice becomes much uglier for them and much uglier for the American taxpayers. The choice becomes whether to extend existing tax policy that has broad support by increasing taxes in areas that will hurt Americans.

Nobody advocates the inconsistency of the pay-as-you-go rules more than the famed House of Representatives Blue Dogs, and they are all Democrats. The Blue Dogs portray themselves as fiscal conservatives. We agree with the Blue Dogs' goals of fiscal responsibility. They will have allies all over my side of the aisle if they want to control spending. The problem is the Blue Dogs are pursuing the same old tax- and-spend game under the cloak of fiscal responsibility. The Blue Dogs will fight tooth and paw over any tax relief that is not offset with a corresponding tax increase.

However, the same self-described fiscally conservative Blue Dogs are not willing to fight tooth and paw to seek the same equality for the taxpayers on the spending side of the ledger. They have a big appetite for spending. The Blue Dogs generally do not seek to offset spending increases with spending cuts in other areas. But in taxes, it is a whole different story. In fact, the Blue Dogs do not even seek to curb the amount of spending increases for which they hunger.

By portraying themselves as fiscal conservatives, while in reality playing the same old tax-and-spend game, the Blue Dogs remind me of the land shark character played by Chevy Chase on ``Saturday Night Live.'' This was many years ago, so maybe some of you will not remember. But we have a picture of the land shark skit with the theme from ``Jaws'' playing in the background.

The land shark knocks on a person's door. With the door still closed, the person would ask: Who is at the door?

The land shark would reply: Flower delivery.

The person answering the door then said: You are that clever shark, aren't you?

And in response, the land shark said: Candygram.

If you don't know how the skit ended, the person eventually let the land shark in the door because that person believed the land shark when the land shark said he was a dolphin. And, yes, the land shark ate that person.

The moral of the land shark story is, don't let yourself be fooled that the Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives because they are pursuing the same old tax-and-spend Washington game. Don't let the House of Representatives Blue Dogs' insatiable appetite for spending swallow the much-needed tax relief contained in the tax extenders.

I recommend that folks take a look at the cover story of the June 14, 2008, edition of the National Journal magazine about the Blue Dogs. It is very enlightening.

In trying to reach a bipartisan agreement on tax extenders, my party's leadership has made several offers to the other side's leadership. One of these offers is to pay for some new tax policy using offsets that make good tax policy sense. This is not simply a vague promise to look for such offsets. For instance, I have suggested we use the offset that closes the loophole that allows hedge fund managers to defer compensation for tax haven jurisdictions.

My time is up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.

I thank the Chair.

So we have offered something like closing a loophole that allows hedge fund managers to defer compensation in tax haven jurisdictions. However, we need to remove the huge charitable loophole that is contained in both the Democratic House and Senate extenders bill.

Let me try to explain something that is not explainable. I would be embarrassed if I had this in one of my bills. This charitable loophole allows hedge fund managers to deduct 100 percent of their deferred compensation that is donated to charity. In contrast, the ordinary American is only permitted to deduct charitable contributions of up to 50 percent of his or her income for that year. Everyone is obviously in favor of charity, but treating wealthy hedge fund managers better than the average American taxpayer makes no sense from a tax policy standpoint.

Also, the Senate Republican leadership suggested that some of the other new tax policy could be paid for by decreasing the scheduled increase in new spending, but that was not taken into consideration, even considering the fact that the present budget authorizes an increase greater than $350 billion over the next 10 years, and none of that is offset.

This extra $350 billion is like an extra checkbook that Congress is carrying around in addition to its already fat checkbook. This checkbook covers nondiscretionary spending and current levels of discretionary spending. We simply asked that they take a few checks out of this extra checkbook--not all of it, just a small part of it--to pay for some of these needed tax relief provisions. However, this suggestion was summarily dismissed.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are unwilling to even consider decreasing their increased nondefense discretionary spending that is above the President's budget. If the Blue Dogs of the other body are fiscal conservatives, they should come out and say they are willing to decrease this increase in the new extra nondefense discretionary spending. Instead, the Blue Dogs' position has been that all of the tax relief provided in the tax extenders package, even the extension of the existing tax policy, must be offset by an equal amount of tax increases on every other American. Why not look at curbing this new excess spending to pay for part of the much needed tax relief? So let us get back to square one. I invite my Blue Dog friends who claim to be fiscal conservatives to answer that question.

Back to where we started today--back to Yogi Berra. He also said: ``It ain't over 'til it's over.'' This extenders vote failed because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to negotiate toward a bipartisan bill that can be signed into law. Because of the Senate Democratic leadership's doomed plan, this extenders discussion ``ain't over 'til it's over.'' Let's get this over with. Let's negotiate toward a bipartisan agreement that can become law so the American people will benefit. So far, the Senate Democratic leadership has not done that. For that reason alone, people did vote ``no'' on cloture, as they previously had.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Ohio for allowing me the additional 4 minutes.

Madam President, at 2:42 today on the Senate floor, the Senate majority leader made an incorrect statement. In discussing the negotiations last night between the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and this Senator, the Senate majority leader, who was not present at the meeting, stated: ``The only thing that Senator Grassley wanted to discuss is having all these extenders not paid for.''

I will make a statement of why this statement is wrong. Specifically, I made three proposals to Chairman Baucus. In all three of the proposals, we agreed to use three tax offsets suggested by Chairman Baucus and his staff.

The first offset I agreed to accept is the offset that closes the loophole that allows hedge fund managers to defer compensation in tax haven jurisdictions. However, I mentioned we needed to remove the huge charitable loophole that is contained in both the Democratic House and Senate extenders bill. Closing this charitable loophole will raise about $1 billion in extra revenue from hedge fund managers, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Let me make clear why that is a very important adjustment. If you, the average taxpayer, want to give the maximum the law allows for a charitable deduction, you can only allow 50 percent of your income to be used for that purpose. But if you are under this provision, if you are a hedge fund manager making contributions to a charity, you can have 100 percent deduction. We think that is unfair to the middle- income taxpayer.

The second offset I reluctantly agreed to accept was a version of the worldwide interest allocation offset. We are still waiting on the revenue estimate for this proposal. This was a compromise on my part. That is what it will take from the other side, as well, to get an extenders bill done--some sort of compromise.

The third offset I agreed to accept is a permanent offset regarding basis reporting of securities brokers.

These three offsets that I agreed to accept could--depending on the revised worldwide interest allocation proposal--raise over $50 billion in revenues as offsets.

As I mentioned above, I made three proposals to chairman Baucus. I also offered to use all three offsets mentioned above for each of the three separate proposals that I made; therefore, paying for much of the revenue loss generated by the tax extender provisions.

In two out of my last three proposals, I proposed using those three offsets to offset much of the revenue loss that results from extending these tax extender provisions.

So for the majority leader to say that ``the only thing that Senator Grassley wanted to discuss is having all these extenders not paid for'' is simply not accurate. And it is plain wrong. The majority leader was not in the room, and he must have received a false report from someone who actually was in the room. Chairman Baucus was in the room. So he knows the majority leader's statement that the only thing Senator Grassley wanted to discuss was having all of these extenders not paid for is untrue. I ask everybody to ask Chairman Baucus.

To demonstrate in detail that the majority leader's statement is incorrect, Chairman Baucus and I discussed a number of issues other than offsets in the media. One of these issues was my disaster tax relief package that is needed for the people of Iowa and the Midwest because of the gigantic 500-year floods.

Three other issues we discussed were the three tax offsets I described above. Some other issues that were discussed were provisions in the Democratic leadership's extenders bill that we objected to, such as the provision regarding the train from Manhattan to JFK Airport that accounts for more than 20 percent of the revenue loss in the Democratic leader's disaster tax package.

In addition, I offered to make all three of my proposals revenue neutral by suggesting that we use the three offsets mentioned above and also decrease the amount of new increases in spending that were approved in the budget only 2 months ago.

Let me be clear, we did not suggest any spending cuts. We suggested our colleagues on the other side of the aisle consider decreasing the amount of new unspecified nondefense discretionary spending. The nondefense discretionary spending that has been authorized in the budget is $350 billion greater than the President's fiscal year 2009 budget. This extra $350 billion is like an extra checkbook that Congress is carrying around in addition to the already fat checkbook. This checkbook covers nondiscretionary spending and current levels of discretionary spending. We simply ask they take a few checks out of the extra checkbook over the next 10 years to help pay for part of the needed tax relief provisions in the tax extenders package.

However, this suggestion was summarily dismissed by Chairman Baucus. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are unwilling to even consider decreasing their increased--and I emphasize ``their increased''--nondefense discretionary spending that is above the President's budget.

In summary, the majority leader's statement at 2:42 this afternoon about my position on our negotiations is flat out wrong, and I cannot be any clearer than that.

Folks across the country must wonder why the Senate cannot pass the popular expiring tax relief provisions. There is no disagreement between the parties on the merits alone. Nearly all Members of this body and the other body support the alternative minimum tax fix and also the other parts we refer to as extenders; in other words, tax provisions that have sunsetted. And, of course, because of the good of these provisions, anybody who opposes it would be crazy.

The problem is the committee and floor process have been disregarded by the Senate Democratic leadership. Debate, exchanges of ideas, up-or- down votes are the essence of how the Senate works. All of that Senate process is now bottled up. The Senate process is quite truncated.

For the first time in this decade--that is, since 2001--the Finance Committee members have not been allowed to exercise their rights in the committee markup with respect to these issues, with one exception--the 2002 stimulus bill.

For the first time in this decade, Senate Members have not had the opportunity to debate and amend extenders in a real Senate floor process. For the first time in this decade, Senators in the minority are being presented with a top-down deal crafted between the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate.

For me, the irony of all of this is very compelling because I found myself within the last 2 years, when Republicans were in the majority, condemning Republicans for trying to get around letting the Senate work its will. Almost 2 years ago today, we faced an attempt to end run the natural order of the committee and floor process by the bicameral Republican leadership of the House and Senate; meaning when we were in the majority. I referred to it at that time as wrongheaded. If it was wrongheaded when we had a Republican majority and the Democratic majority is doing it, it is just as wrongheaded, as far as I am concerned, because 2 years ago it was doomed to fail.

I don't know how many times I told the Republican leadership: It ain't going to work. And right now we are faced with it when we have a new majority and that new majority is Democratic. Two years ago, it was envisioned as some sort of unicameral, not a bipartisan, bicameral tax- writing committee process. The unicameral tax-writing committee process 2 years ago ignored the rights and the privileges of both political parties. I used sharp words and directed them at my side's leadership of the House and Senate.

I am sure some on my side thought my comments were over the top. I don't care. I didn't care then, at least. Then-Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Enzi stood shoulder to shoulder with me in this process. My friends on the Democratic side criticized my leadership for the harm it was doing to the rights of the Members of this body that is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the entire world of any parliamentary bodies.

That is why I find today's actions bitterly ironic. I am sorry to say today we find the Democratic leadership attempting to do much the same thing. Like the failed trifecta jam then, today's jam will not work.

Let me make clear, when I refer to the ``trifecta jam then,'' I mean 2 years ago when Republican leaders thought they could stuff something down the throats of Democrats in this body. It failed then, and that sort of jam is not working when Democrats are in the leadership position.

It is part of a larger problem with the Senate because we are not going

through the regular order at the committee and floor levels. Issues are building up, tempers are flaring, and most importantly, nothing is getting done and the people are mad about it. The people back home are mad about it.

I reiterate what I said this morning. The fourth vote failed. That failed cloture vote had the effect of Kaopectate. It further constipated the Senate. This legislative body needs to function. Legislation needs to circulate through this body in the usual form. We need real debate and real amendments. We need a legislative laxative.

Another alternative to resolution is an informal bipartisan process. Either way, repeated cloture partisan jams do not lead to an agreement that can pass the House, the Senate, and be signed by the President. And don't forget about that because that is an important part of the process. I think the White House spoke out on some of the AMT and extender legislation we have been considering.

I have my pencil sharpened, a note pad out. I am ready to engage in our bipartisan process with my friend Chairman Baucus. I am hopeful the Democratic leadership will relieve the constipation on the tax extenders legislation. The Finance Committee and Senate need to function.

On behalf of Leader McConnell, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request about which I already informed the other side. The agreement, if accepted by the majority, would set in motion a process that would lead to resolution of these expired provisions. If accepted by the majority, we would have real debate, real votes, and a resolution that matters.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the energy speculation bill, the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of the Baucus extender bill, S. 3335, and a bill introduced by Senator Grassley on the same subject of extenders; provided further, that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form to run concurrently on both measures; and that following that time, the bills be read a third time, en bloc, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of S. 3335, followed by a vote on passage of the Grassley bill. I further ask unanimous consent that if either bill does not receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the bill be returned to the calendar.

Madam President, I wish to correct the Senator on a couple of respects, and he has exercised the right I expected. First, we accept the provisions that were in the Baucus bill for offsets. We did suggest a modification on the provision that the Senator said we don't want. He is wrong on that point. We will accept it. There is a slight modification in it that would give an election. We go along with that provision, and I think I made that clear in the remarks I proposed.

The second place the Senator from Illinois is wrong is we are not proposing the cutting of spending. We are proposing the $350 billion increase that their budget has suggested for additional spending be reduced by a very small percentage.

Yes.

If my colleague wants to figure that all the $350 billion is going to go to the National Institutes of Health, he is right. But all $350 billion, obviously, is not going to go to the National Institutes of Health.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, 2 days ago, I came to the floor to talk about tax policy and the history of tax policy. I have come to follow up on that speech of 2 days ago to talk about the recent history of speeches that were made in past Presidential elections and the tax policy that was associated with those speeches and in another day or two, come to the floor to speak about the different tax policies between Senator Obama on the one hand and Senator McCain on the other hand.

History is very important. Elections have consequences. Policy coming out of an election has consequences and eventually affects real people. The impact upon the voter of past elections, what people said in those elections, what happened after the election in policy, ought to be things people are taking into consideration for the upcoming Presidential election. As to that speech I gave 2 days ago, I want to go back and remind my colleagues of a couple of comments I made at that particular time.

At various times during the past 25 years, we have had times when Democrats have controlled both the Presidency and the Congress. There have been times when the Democrats have controlled Congress and we had a Republican President. And there have been times when we have had both a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Tax cuts or tax increases have resulted from that. And you find a pretty good pattern of when you have both a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that you have big tax increases, as is the case in 1993--if you remember the big tax increase of 1993.

Then there are periods of time when we have had a Republican President and a Republican Congress and you can see tax decreases--very deep decreases in taxes. Then you have a period of time in here where there was a little flurry--some tax cuts, some tax increases--when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.

So elections do have consequences. Another chart that would show it a little better and more specifically would be this thermometer chart, where we have it very clear that when you have times when you have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, you have some of the biggest tax increases in history. And that would be this figure. There are times we have had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress with some tax increases but a little bit less. There are times we have had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress with slight tax decreases.

When you have a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, you have some tax decreases but not very much. Then you have times when you have a Republican President, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House, and you have tax decreases but not by very much. Then you have times when you have a Republican President and a Republican Congress and you have deep tax cuts.

So what this chart shows--this thermometer--over the last 25 years, is that if you have Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses you have deep tax cuts. When you have Democrats controlling both the Presidency and the Congress, you have very rapid tax increases. So elections do have consequences.

I want to go now to a period of time of a specific election and the tax consequences that came as a result of that election. But I think you have to realize that the relationship is clear from the past 25 years: the more relative power Democrats have, the higher the probability of a tax increase. So Americans will need to think long and hard about campaign promises of tax relief as they consider their choices in this Presidential election. The reason is that history shows very clearly, if Democrats obtain the White House and control of Congress, taxes are certain to go up. And not just go up on the wealthy but across the board.

Today, I would like to follow up last week's discussion. This week, I want to focus on a campaign season most like this one and take a look at how the victors in that campaign used their taxing power once sworn in. The period I am thinking about is 16 years ago. Well, in 16 years you can learn a lot from history, and I think people ought to be reminded of it.

But before I get into details, I would like to say that I hope this election doesn't go the same way that it did 16 years ago because President Bill Clinton was elected. I want people to be clear that I am pulling for a Republican colleague, Senator McCain, to defeat another one of our Senate colleagues, Senator Obama.

So let's turn the clock back to this time 16 years ago, and I have another chart. This chart considers the story of Rip Van Winkle, which I think is very appropriate during this period of time. You know the story about Rip Van Winkle. He was a person who slept for 20 years. Here is the chart showing Rip Van Winkle.

If you round up just a little bit, it is almost 20 years since that 1992 campaign, and you will see from this chart those events from a while ago might have led to a form of tax hike amnesia.

If we go back to the 1992 campaign--and I will show you eventually how this is pretty appropriate to the campaign coming up--in 1992, you find a very charismatic, a very likable, a very articulate young Governor from Arkansas barnstorming across the country. Bill Clinton was 46 years old, facing a 47th birthday in mid-August. He was widely acknowledged as the most talented public speaker on the Presidential scene since Ronald Reagan.

America had been in a recession at that time. Although it was not reported until after the election, which is something you might expect from our liberal media, the American economy had recovered in the latter half of 1992, but it was not officially announced until the day after the 1992 election, when all of a sudden the recession was over, just because of the election. But all during that election, reading the media, you would always be reminded about the recession we were in. But magically, election day 1992, 1 day later, and the recession was over.

The charismatic Democratic Presidential candidate promised to focus, in his words, ``like a laser beam'' on the economic ills that Americans worried about. In a key speech on June 21, 1992,

this ``different kind of a Democrat'' laid out his economic plan. He called the plan ``Putting People First.'' I am going to focus in a laser-like way on then-Governor Clinton's tax agenda that he announced for that 1992 campaign.

In that speech, candidate Clinton was very critical of the marginal tax rate relief that President Reagan had put into effect. To quote candidate Clinton:

For more than a decade, this country has been rigged in

favor of the rich and the special interests.

And we still hear that today.

While the very wealthiest Americans get richer, middle-

class Americans pay more to their government and get less in

return. For 12 years, the driving idea behind American

economic policy has been cutting taxes on the richest

individuals and corporations and hoping their new wealth

would ``trickle down'' to the rest of us.

That is a quote from his speech of June 21, 1992.

As a relief from this version of the middle-class squeeze, candidate Clinton proposed middle-income tax relief, and here is what he said:

Middle class tax fairness. Virtually every industrialized

nation recognizes the importance of strong families in its

Tax Code. We should too. We will lower the tax burden on

middle class Americans by forcing the rich to pay their fair

share. Middle class taxpayers will have a choice between a

children's tax credit and a significant reduction in income

tax rate.

Now, doesn't all of this sound very familiar to speeches that are going on this year? I have quoted from a June 21, 1992, speech given by candidate Clinton, but you would think that you are hearing exactly the same thing this year.

Now, let's get down to basic facts. The definitions of rich and middle class are always open. They probably vary from candidate to candidate and everything with intellectual honesty and where you might set rich and where you might set middle class. A person who is rich in Mason City, IA, might be middle class in New York City.

An irony I continue to notice around here relates to this point. It seems as if the politicians from the highest income, highest cost of living, highest taxed States seem to be the most obsessed with raising taxes on their Presidential candidate's definition of the rich. In this case, I am referring to a single person who makes $125,000, or double it for a married couple to $250,000. That seems to be the dividing line between the rich and other people, according to the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate.

Now, is $250,000 a rich family in Manhattan? Is $250,000 a rich family in San Francisco? Is $250,000 a rich family in Chicago? Is $250,000 a rich family in Boston? By the definition of Senators from those areas, I guess I would have to say it is. Do those families in those cities know they are rich and that their Senators think they pay too little tax?

But I digress. In candidate Clinton's economic plan that was announced on June 21, 1992, the rich were--put another way--the top 2 percent income earners in the United States. On September 8, 1992, candidate Bill Clinton said:

The only people who will pay more income taxes are the

wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making more

than $200,000 per year.

By definition, you would think under candidate Clinton's plan that everybody below that level of 2 percent, or $200,000, is either middle class or low income. Now, remember what I said that he said--the only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent-- because I am going to show you, after being sworn in, how that turned out to be a heck of a lot more people than the wealthiest 2 percent.

On January 20, 1993, President Clinton was inaugurated. Democrats retained their solid majority, 56 to 44, in this body. Although losing 9 seats in the U.S. House, the Democrats retained a heavy majority of 258 to 176. Once elected, the Democratic White House and the Democratic Congress converted the campaign economic plan, as you would expect them to, into a legislative blueprint. A key feature of the program, the middle-class tax cut, was thrown to the side.

On January 14, 2003, at a press conference, President-elect Clinton stated:

From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely

mystify me, the press thought the most important issue in the

race was a middle-class tax cut. I never did meet any voter

who thought that.

Now, how do you reconcile the contents of the economic plan and the shift in position after the election? Pulitzer Prize winning author Bob Woodward--who I think has a great deal of respect among most people of the Senate--wrote a comprehensive book about the first part of the Clinton administration. It was titled ``The Agenda.'' Mr. Woodward, of the Washington Post, described it this way:

While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut

publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers

that it was intellectually dishonest.

That is Woodward saying that, not Chuck Grassley. The late journalist, Michael Kelly, in an article in the New York Times, explained how the newly elected President planned to ``escape'' from his middle-class tax cut campaign promise. Here is what Mr. Kelly wrote, in part:

[T]he President built himself an escape hatch a little less

than a month before Election Day. Every time Clinton said

``I'm not going to raise taxes on the middle class,'' he

always added the phrase ``to pay for my programs,'' said a

chief political adviser to the President, who spoke on

condition of anonymity. He never, never, said just, ``I will

not raise taxes on the middle class.'' He always said ``I

will not raise middle-class taxes to pay for my

programs.''

Madam President, I want to have Mr. Kelly's article printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

While the middle-class tax cut was discarded, the definition of the group subject to a tax increase, ``the rich,'' expanded. According to a distribution analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the taxpayers above $20,000 in income received a tax increase. So no longer was it just taxing the top 2 percent richest people in America. That was when you were campaigning for President. When you get to be President, it is $20,000.

It was true that taxpayers above $200,000 go up far more than other groups. But generally taxpayers above $20,000 saw their taxes rise.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the joint tax distribution analysis of the 1993 tax bill.

That comprehensive tax increase went into effect on the strength of Democratic votes only. I was here and I remember that. You could look at it as the consequences of the confidence in the large Democratic majorities in Congress, and a newly elected Democratic President. Basically, however, there was no check on one political party's agenda. If that agenda is to raise taxes and increase spending, then it is not a surprise.

Mr. Kelly's article notes the adverse reaction of a prominent player of the leftwing in this town. This is a Mr. Robert S. McIntyre, who was very active in causes that you consider liberal. Quoting from Mr. Kelly's article, this is what Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group, had to say.

They campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and then four

days into a new Administration the chief economic spokesman

is talking about a middle-class tax increase. That's a flip-

flop.

That is the end of the quote of Mr. McIntyre, quoting from Mr. Kelly's article.

Most folks are unhappy about flip-flopping politicians. Fishermen may like a flip-flopping fish that they brought into the boat. This photo is the best fish I could find to demonstrate that. That is about the only kind of flip-flopper that would be received positively. If a politician flips from a tax cut promise to a tax hike, you can bet most folks will consider that move a flop in more ways than one.

All of this happened almost 16 years ago, but it is relevant for this year as we go into a debate on taxes for this campaign. During almost 14 years since Republicans have held either the White House or the Congress or both--and this chart shows, as I pointed out once before, Congress and the President have generally reduced the tax burden. That is during this period of time, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

It has been a long time, almost 15 years since the American people have seen a large tax increase, going back to the period of time when the Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress.

Then I remember right here on the floor, because I was here when he said it, the then-Finance Committee chairman Pat Moynihan termed the 1993 tax bill:

. . . the largest tax increase in the history of public

finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

Philosopher George Santayana said words to the effect that history repeats itself, and if you do not learn from history, you are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. A risk Americans face, if we hand over all the reins of power to the Democratic Party, is to repeat the history of 15 years ago.

I am a Republican. I know what polls show. They show right now that the

electorate trusts Democrats more than Republicans on tax policy. But the 1992 campaign shows that if you listen too much to what is said in the campaign, it doesn't necessarily come out that way in the election. So I raise the question, during the debate of 2008, in the Presidential campaign, are we headed in the same direction? Are we going to hear all the talk about taxing nobody but the rich but end up doing as we did in 1993, taxing the middle class?

Our tax increase amnesia may lead us in that direction. We could find ourselves then being like Rip van Winkle. We will hear dreamy rhetoric about hope and about change. It will be clothed in a slumber of middle- class tax relief and tax increases on only the rich, as it was in the campaign of 1992. We could awaken from that slumber, our tax increase amnesia would probably fade, we could wake up to another world record tax increase.

I know what the folks who put in place that world record tax increase will say. They will defend it by arguing that it cut the deficit. They will argue that by cutting the deficit and moving to a surplus, that interest rates dropped. While it is true the fiscal situation went from deficit in 1992 to surplus in 1999, there were many other factors involved and a tax increase was not the biggest reason for it.

First, supporters of the 1993 bill touted it as a dollar of spending cuts matched by a dollar of tax increase. If you were a taxpayer, wouldn't you buy that? Pay one more dollar and get a dollar decrease in expenditures? But, you know, it doesn't work out that way. A close look at the numbers shows the bill contained $4 of tax increase to every $1 of spending cuts.

I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff analysis dated June 28, 1993, printed in the Record.

I have another chart to back up what I say, that the tax increase was not responsible for the deficit going down. The chart shows the source of deficit reduction from 1990 through the year 2000. The tax increase represented only 13 percent, just 13 percent of the deficit reduction during that period. Other revenue, mainly from economic growth and defense spending cuts, made the deficit decline.

Even with the 1993 bill in effect, 2 years later the Congressional Budget Office projected President Clinton's budget as producing significant deficits as far as the eye could see.

But several events not related at all to the 1993 tax increase pushed the budget toward surplus until 1999. First, Republicans attained control of Congress in 1994 and made a deficit reduction a priority. Year after year, Republican Congresses resisted Democratic efforts to spend over tight budget caps placed in the Republican budget. Most often, President Clinton would extract additional spending in the end deal. Republican resistance, however, to popular Democratic spending proposals often had political consequences for Republican Members.

Second, revenues, especially capital gains revenues, grew after the bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 1997. The centerpiece of that bill was, ironically, a middle-class tax cut in the form of a $500-per-child tax credit. The child tax credit was a fundamental part of the Republican Contract With America.

Another key component of that bill was a reduction in the top capital gains rate from 28 percent down to 20 percent. It is down to 15 percent now, as a result of the 2003 tax bill, but then it went from 28 down to 20 in 1997.

As I said, there was a widely documented significant growth in capital gains revenue after that rate reduction in 1997, as there was with the rate reduction in 2003. Indeed, even the Clinton Treasury scored the reduction as a revenue raiser and was more than vindicated.

Finally, external factors aside from tax policy led to revenue growth. Free trade opened more markets to American goods and services. The Internet bubble started to form. It was burst in 2000 with the collapse of the NASDAQ and the business cycle yielded an economic expansion after the 1991 recession ended.

Economist J.D. Foster has documented this data. I commend to my colleagues WebMemo dated March 5, 2008, available on the Internet at www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm.

At the end of the day, the justification for the tax flip-flop in 1993 mattered not one whit. Supporters of the 1993 tax hike can offer whatever reason they want for the record tax increase. A flip-flop of that size is, in fact, a flip-flop.

What they cannot dispute is their Presidential candidate promised a middle-class tax cut. Once they had the White House and congressional control, the other side abandoned the tax cut promise, raised taxes on Americans--not just above $200,000 a year but from $20,000 up.

That is not a tax cut. That is a middle-class tax increase. So, once again, like Rip Van Winkle, taxpayers do not want to wake up to that tax increase.

As a minimum, as the Presidential campaign unfolds, Americans need to keep this very clear history in mind. We need to probe the candidates in 2008 on where they want to go on tax policy so what they say in 2008 is done in 2009, not a repeat of what was said in 1992 and what was done in 1993. We need to be careful not to leave escape hatches on favorable sounding tax cut campaign promises.

In that vein, I will follow up on this discussion and the prior discussion with a later speech that concentrates on where each Presidential candidate stands this year on tax issues. I will examine these positions in the light of this history I have discussed--of the likelihood of each side, whether they will deliver on campaign tax policy positions.

To sum up, we are hearing from a very articulate and attractive Democratic Presidential candidate. On tax issues, as we heard 16 years ago from the soon-to-be President at that time, Bill Clinton, we are hearing a proposal to tax the rich this year to provide tax cuts for the middle class. We are hearing that this year.

The Presidential candidate on the Republican side has a different message. We need to explore that as well. His message, consistent with a Republican position for almost 30 years, has

been to continue progrowth, low levels of taxation. In light of history I look forward to discussing the two competing visions of tax policy in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the FBI turned 100 years old on June 26, 2008, and so I want to offer some remarks to mark the occasion. This anniversary is the perfect opportunity to look at the FBI's accomplishments and failures over the past 100 years and its challenges for the future.

During the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, seven U.S. Secret Service operatives moved to the new Department of Justice Bureau of Investigation to start a new mission. Thus, the FBI was born. The FBI has had countless successes in its first centennial. In particular, the Bureau developed a talented corps of professional agents and staff who pioneered new investigative tools that set most of the standards of modern law enforcement.

The FBI had early successes with the arrests of Al Capone and Gangster ``Machine Gun'' Kelly in the 1930s. Bonnie and Clyde were also permanently put out of business thanks to some local cops and the FBI. The Bureau later went after the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and 1950s. It targeted the New York mafia in the 1980s and 1990s, which led to the decline of the Gambino crime family and its infamous leader, John Gotti.

However, the FBI also has had its share of failures. From its own civil rights abuses in unauthorized wiretapping of civil rights leaders, to the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and Waco, to the internal betrayal by special agent Robert Hansen, there have been many dark days in the history of the Bureau. Still, I am confident that if the FBI is willing to honestly examine its own shortcomings, it can learn the lessons necessary to improve and become more effective at keeping Americans safe and free.

I celebrate with all FBI employees, active and retired, whose difficult and courageous work keeps the rest of us secure.

I also recognize and honor agents who have paid the ultimate price to protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. These heroes deserve praise for their hard work and sacrifice.

The protection of the United States is the FBI's main mission. The FBI is tasked to keep us safe from terrorist attacks, foreign spies, public corruption, infringements on civil rights, organized crime, and major white-collar and violent crime. To serve its mission, the Bureau maintains a worldwide presence in over 400 cities in the United States and 60 countries worldwide.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the FBI has focused its efforts on antiterrorism. Its intelligence and diligence have protected our Nation from countless threats to our safety. FBI employees have stepped up in these treacherous times, and we count on them every day. They put their lives on the line for our freedom.

We know they are fulfilling their mission when nothing happens to harm us, when we have another day, week, and year free from a terrorist attack and violent crime.

Like any anniversary, this is a good opportunity for us to look at the FBI's failures so it can learn and grow from its mistakes. For years, I have been a watchdog of the FBI's propensity to retaliate against whistleblowers, the Bureau's unwillingness to cooperate with other agencies, and its inability to update its technology system. I hope on its 100-year anniversary, the FBI will turn a new leaf and correct these problems to create a better, safer century ahead.

Parts of the FBI's internal culture hamper its ability to effectively identify and neutralize threats to national safety. For instance, the Bureau has what I have called a ``Pac-Man'' mentality, because it tries to gobble up whatever it can of other agencies' jurisdiction, evidence, and cases. At times, it has acted like a lunch-stealing bully on the playground.

Our safety would be much better preserved if the FBI would play nice and share jurisdiction and resources with the other agencies. The FBI should concentrate on its primary mission--fighting terrorism--and let other agencies take the lead on investigations in which they have specialized expertise. For example, often, drug and bombing cases should be handled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, respectively.

This Pac-Man mentality is evident by the way the FBI demands access to

other law enforcement groups' intelligence, informants, evidence, and resources, and yet it rarely shares its own information and resources-- even after 9/11. For instance, in 2006, Houston Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, agent Joe Webber testified before a House Committee that the FBI purposely delayed a wiretap request in an ICE-headed terrorism financing case, simply because it was an ICE-originated case, rather than an FBI case.

The result of this Pac-Man attitude by the FBI was a missed opportunity to hunt down the perpetrators of terrorist financing in that case.

The FBI has also engaged in jurisdiction grabbing with the ATF over bombing cases and with the DEA over drug cases. Turf wars don't help keep our streets safe, because our limited resources are wasted when programs and investigations are duplicated. Instead of concentrating its resources on antiterrorism, the FBI has tried to take over investigations in which other agencies have jurisdiction and expertise.

Similarly, the FBI has not always cooperated with other agencies in information-sharing efforts. This reluctance to cooperate is epitomized in FBI agents' turf wars with ATF agents. The Washington Post reported that FBI agents sold counterfeit cigarettes to ATF agents because the two agencies were running twin tobacco smuggling stings.

At crime scenes, the Washington Post reported, agents from each agency threatened to arrest each other over jurisdiction and evidence squabbles. The agencies acted like two dogs fighting over one bone. The problem is that there are plenty of bones out there, and the agencies can each get more if they work together.

Another problem area exists in deciding which agency should investigate domestic bombing incidents. Until recently, the FBI and ATF have been operating under a 1973 memorandum of understanding, which predated and did not anticipate the ATF's 2002 move to the Justice Department from the Treasury. This old agreement failed to take into account the post-9/11 emphasis on searching for terrorism links in bombing cases. With a 35-year-old agreement, it doesn't surprise me that there was so much confusion and squabbling between the two agencies.

I have recently learned that the Attorney General issued a new MOU that will now be the controlling authority between the ATF and FBI in bombing cases.

I am curious to see this new MOU and sincerely hope the FBI and ATF have come up with a better way to resolve disputes regarding which agency takes the lead on domestic bombing cases.

Unfortunately, there is reason to be skeptical that this new MOU will have an impact. A 2004 memo from former Attorney General Ashcroft directed the FBI and ATF to combine their bomb databases under the ATF's direction, because of the ATF's expertise in bombing cases. However, 4 years after the Attorney General issued that directive, the FBI still has not transferred its bomb database to ATF's management.

Without the ATF's and FBI's cooperation in this area, agents are more likely to be missing key information. I don't blame the agents on the street for this problem. The problem is the direct result of jurisdictional greed and indecision by top bureaucrats at FBI Headquarters. It is imperative that the two agencies work together so that they can keep the country safe.

Notwithstanding these issues, there have been instances of effective cooperation. In 2007, the ATF and FBI cooperated with other law enforcement agencies, and their efforts resulted in the largest prosecution of environmental extremists in U.S. history. Ten ecoterrorists were convicted for politically motivated arson that caused $40 million in damage. We need to see more of these types of successes, and if the FBI and other agencies can replicate this kind of cooperation in the next 100 years, Federal law enforcement will end up better fighting criminals and terrorists together, rather than fighting against each other.

I have also done oversight of the culture within the FBI which encourages retaliation against whistleblowers. There have been too many cases of continued retaliation against FBI whistleblowers. Any FBI employee who has the courage to come forward to expose corruption or wasted resources in the FBI should be applauded, rather than punished. Not only are these courageous individuals safeguarding our tax dollars, they are also diverting resources from waste to use in the fight against terrorism and crime.

Whistleblowers can spur the FBI to correct its problems. For instance, FBI agent Coleen Rowley went public with insights about the FBI's conduct in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Rowley wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller in May 2002, outlining how her Minneapolis field office pushed to search Zacharias Moussaoui's home and laptop following French intelligence reports on his connections and activities. But FBI headquarters downplayed the need to get a FISA wiretap and search his home and computer and ultimately denied the Minneapolis field office's request. This was after the FBI got reports that Moussaoui tried to take flight lessons and a Phoenix field agent reported suspicions about Middle Eastern men enrolled in flight school.

After the attacks, Rowley wrote her concerns in a letter to Director Mueller about how FBI headquarters ``downplayed, glossed over, and/or mischaracterized'' their investigation of Moussaoui. We don't know what could have been prevented if the Minneapolis office had been able to pursue Moussaoui when it had the chance.

What we know is that whistleblowers play an important role in improving our agencies. On its 100-year anniversary, the FBI should recognize that it needs to listen to those courageous agents who alert them to a problem, rather than retaliate against the messenger.

There continue to be high-profile cases involving discrimination against FBI whistleblowers. For instance, just over a month ago, FBI agent Bassem Yousseff came forward and testified before Congress about staffing deficiencies in the counterterrorism program of the FBI. Without his testimony, Congress would not have known that the FBI is having trouble filling those critical positions. Yet, just 2 days after testifying, agent Youseff was accused of violating FBI regulations. The FBI dropped its allegations, but I am not willing to drop the subject. I sent a letter, along with House Judiciary Committee and subcommittee chairmen, demanding the FBI turn over its records to determine what happened. The FBI has not responded. The FBI should have a system that encourages concerned agents to come forward and identify problems that can then be solved, rather than swept under the rug. It should not use whistleblowers as ``canaries in coal mines,'' to be sacrificed as soon as they alert us to a problem.

Another problem the FBI must correct is the different standard of punishments it sets for agents versus their supervisors. While a supervisor may get a slap on the wrist for misconduct, an agent may be heavily reprimanded. For example, agent Cecilia Woods reported that her supervisor engaged in illicit sexual activities with a paid informant. Her courage and honesty in reporting this improper activity were rewarded with two investigations into her own conduct, suspensions, and a transfer.

Meanwhile, senior level FBI agents are treated differently for their misconduct. For instance, acting special agent in charge in Baltimore, Jennifer Smith-Love, was investigated, along with two agents acting under her direction, for conducting an unauthorized search of another agent's computer.

However, Smith-Love's investigation was classified as a performance issue, rather than a misconduct issue. While the investigation was still ongoing, she got a promotion. The disparate treatment of agent Cecelia Woods and special agent in charge Jennifer Smith-Love illustrates how the FBI reprimands its agents much more harshly than it reprimands supervisors.

This unequal treatment of agents and senior management is unfair and creates an appearance of double standards at the agency. Double standards in discipline devastate morale among the dedicated, hardworking FBI agents who are just trying to do their job. The FBI should set more uniform guidelines for punishments for both agents and supervisors.

Another area the FBI needs to improve is its implementation of information technology upgrades. For years, the FBI has been charged with the task of bringing its computer systems up to date. However, despite spurts of progress, this effort has been hobbled by embarrassment and setback.

The FBI had to scrap a $170 million case management system called Virtual Case File in 2005. The Virtual Case File system was scrapped because it failed before it ever got rolling. VCF was poorly designed and poorly managed, and to make matters worse, the FBI placed little internal controls on the oversight of the project. To date, the FBI still has not completed a new version of the system, now known as Sentinel. Information technology needs to be a top priority for the FBI if it wants to effectively hunt down and disrupt terrorist cells around the globe. The situation could not be more urgent, and the FBI needs to step up and get the job done, on time and on budget.

It is also important to note that the FBI's budget has tripled since 1999. Last year, Congress appropriated almost $7 billion dollars to the Bureau. We should not tolerate the FBI's continued mismanagement of public funds on programs that don't work. The American taxpayers can not afford another Virtual Case File.

Technological advances are important tools to keep up with dangerous terrorists and criminals. As terrorists and criminals use more advanced technology to evade detection, the FBI needs to stay ahead of them with new technologies to fight them without delays or setbacks. Americans are counting on a system that works to help prevent the next terrorist attack.

Congress plays an important oversight role over the FBI and other agencies. I take this role very seriously, as it is crucial to our system of checks and balances. At this 100-year juncture, I encourage the FBI to step up to the plate to make positive changes in its agency.

Congress also has a role to play in the future of the FBI. In the 107th and 108th Congresses, legislation was introduced to reform the FBI to protect whistleblowers and provide true accountability. Unfortunately, these reforms were never fully enacted into law. We should revisit these efforts to help the Bureau be the best it can be.

I also believe that Congress needs to continue to examine the FBI's counterterrorism mission and look at the calls some have made to split the FBI's law enforcement and domestic intelligence functions along the lines of the British MI-5. Now some may see my statement as a call to dismantle the FBI, that is not what I am saying. What I do believe is that our constitutional duty to conduct oversight includes a soup-to- nuts review of our law enforcement policies, including whether or not those at the FBI are achieving their primary mission. I think there is merit to arguments on both sides and believe we should spend some of our time looking into this. To summarize, I thank FBI employees, past and present, for their collective past 100 years of service. I also challenge the FBI's management to grab ahold of the reins to build a stronger, more accountable, transparent, and effective FBI. I challenge the FBI's leadership to recognize and correct the problems it currently has so the Bureau can be the top notch law enforcement agency it can be.

Now is an ideal time for the agency to look back on what it has done right and wrong and work to do a lot better in the future.

I ask unanimous consent that Paraskevi Maddox, Lyndsey Arnold, and Cale Kassel be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the 110th Congress.