Floor Statements

Mr. President, last month we celebrated National Adoption Month. In 2003, Americans opened their hearts and homes to over 20,000 orphaned children born overseas. In order to adopt these children the families had to submit extensive paperwork and work with three federal agencies in order to be approved to adopt a foreign born child and to be able to bring that child home to America. The Intercountry Adoption Reform Act that I am introducing today along with Senators Landrieu, Craig, and Inhofe streamlines the process families go through to adopt a child from overseas by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and consolidating the federal functions into one office.

Last November, I introduced the first version of the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act, known simply as the ICARE Act, along with Senators Landrieu, Craig, Inhofe, Bingaman, and Smith. Over the last year we have received many comments about the bill from groups representing adoption professionals as well as comments from the administration. In response to these comments, we have revised our original bill to incorporate many of the suggestions provided to us and to address some of the concerns expressed.

Two major changes have been made. First, we have added enforcement provisions. We revised the bill to make clear that the new Office of Intercountry Adoption (OIA) will have the ability to protect children, birth families and adoptive families from fraud and abuse through enforcement provisions. It also clarifies that the OIA can work with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to enforce the provisions of the Act. Second, we added provisions to provide a smooth transition from the

current adoption process to the new and improved process. These provisions ensure that all adoption cases filed prior to the opening of the OIA would be processed under the current rules. Any cases filed after the opening of the OIA would be processed under the provisions of

Mr. President, last month we celebrated National Adoption Month. In 2003, Americans opened their hearts and homes to over 20,000 orphaned children born overseas. In order to adopt these children the families had to submit extensive paperwork and work with three federal agencies in order to be approved to adopt a foreign born child and to be able to bring that child home to America. The Intercountry Adoption Reform Act that I am introducing today along with Senators Landrieu, Craig, and Inhofe streamlines the process families go through to adopt a child from overseas by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and consolidating the federal functions into one office.

Last November, I introduced the first version of the Intercountry Adoption Reform Act, known simply as the ICARE Act, along with Senators Landrieu, Craig, Inhofe, Bingaman, and Smith. Over the last year we have received many comments about the bill from groups representing adoption professionals as well as comments from the administration. In response to these comments, we have revised our original bill to incorporate many of the suggestions provided to us and to address some of the concerns expressed.

Two major changes have been made. First, we have added enforcement provisions. We revised the bill to make clear that the new Office of Intercountry Adoption (OIA) will have the ability to protect children, birth families and adoptive families from fraud and abuse through enforcement provisions. It also clarifies that the OIA can work with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to enforce the provisions of the Act. Second, we added provisions to provide a smooth transition from the

current adoption process to the new and improved process. These provisions ensure that all adoption cases filed prior to the opening of the OIA would be processed under the current rules. Any cases filed after the opening of the OIA would be processed under the provisions of

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed as in morning business for 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for his consideration.

My wife and I, our families, were taking our Christmas photo a few days ago and I was surprised to realize that our two oldest children were actually older than we were when we came to the Senate. They are in their thirties and I think I was 32 when I was sworn in, just turned 32, and now we have a couple of children who are that age or more. It tells me we have been here a little while. I am actually very surprised that I am concluding 24 years in the Senate.

I have absolutely loved working in the Senate. The Senate is a great institution. It is one of the true pillars of democracy in the world, one which people look to with great respect and admiration. I have always been proud to be called a Senator and I have always been proud to represent my State and my country. To me, it represents a shining city on a hill, and a true beacon of democracy for the free world which has stood for more than two hundred years.

My first time to visit the Senate and sit in the gallery was in 1974 and I was coming to Congress as a businessman to give my impressions on a bill that was pending before Congress. The bill was called ERISA, Employment Retirement Income Security Act. I ran a small business in Ponca City, OK, and I thought the better title for the bill was ``Every Ridiculous Idea Since Adam.''

But that was in 1974. I happened to be here, it was a coincidence at the time, and Senator McConnell will appreciate this, being a political historian, it was a time when an election was contested and it happened to be the Senate election of Oklahoma. Henry Bellman, was reelected by a very close margin over Congressman Edmondson. As all of our colleagues know, the Senate is the final arbiter in contested elections and it was being contested on the floor of the Senate the time I was here.

Senator Domenici remembers that. It was a very contested, spirited debate.

I was quite taken by the debate. I sat in the gallery for hours. I remember Senator Allen, a Democrat. The Democrats controlled the Senate at that time. Henry Bellman was a Republican. He won by a very narrow margin--I can't remember what it was, a couple thousand votes. There were disputes on election-counting machines. That sounds kind of familiar. It was a great debate. I remember Senator Allen spoke on Senator Bellman's behalf, and then they had the rollcall vote and enough Democrats voted with Senator Bellman, and that was the end of it.

I happened to ride back on the plane that day, and guess what. I was riding with Senator Bellman and Congressman Edmondson. They were friends and they were shaking hands. I was impressed. And I was impressed with this body. I was impressed with the Senate. I was impressed with the Senators. I was impressed with the conduct of the debate. I was impressed with the fact that almost all Senators were here during the debate.

It was such a special occasion. I was so pleased because Henry Bellman was reelected and affirmed by the Senate because I also considered him a mentor and a leader in Oklahoma. He was the first Republican Senator elected in our State in a long time and now he was reelected. Senator Domenici served with him on the Budget Committee. He was the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, on the formation of the Budget Committee in 1974. I served with Ed Muskie and he did a wonderful job in that capacity.

That was my first, personal impression of the Senate. My impression of the Senate was very good then and it has been very good ever since. I have absolutely had the greatest respect for this institution and for this body. This body is composed of great Members.

I remember the time coming into the Senate when I was elected. It was 1980. That was a big election year. We have had a few big election years in my time, but I'm not sure we have ever had one quite as big, as dramatic a change as we did in 1980. There were 18 new Senators elected in 1980, and 16 of the 18 were Republicans. The majority leader became Howard Baker from Tennessee. He was nice enough to be my mentor, and I thought the world of him then as I still do today. He is a wonderful Ambassador to Japan, and he and Nancy Kassenbaum were wonderful Senators. It was a great time to serve in the Senate.

I remember the highlight of my Senate career was on Ronald Reagan's inaugural day on January 20, 1981. It was a beautiful day, and I remember the hostages in Iran were released that very day. They were held hostage for 444 days. They were liberated on that inaugural day. I will never forget what a euphoric feeling it was for not just those of us who were elected to the Senate and taking control--the Republicans were taking control of the Senate for the first time in decades. I think none of those Republicans had ever been in the majority, and I don't believe any of those Democrats had ever been in the minority.

That was a big change. It was kind of a fun change from my vantage point. There was so many new people. I was one of 18 new Senators, and it was a great time. That was a big turnover any time in this institution. To think that the hostages were released and Ronald Reagan was elected--it was a big exciting time, and a lot was accomplished.

I was coming to Congress as a businessman from Ponca City, OK, with an agenda. Part of the agenda was not to be here forever. Frankly, I told people I was running because I thought our country had declined far too much militarily, economically, and morally, and I wanted to do something about it.

I came here to cut taxes and to cut regulations, particularly in the energy industry, and to see if we couldn't make positive changes for the country. Economic issues aside, I wanted to defeat the Communists. This was of particular concern to me, as I thought our country had declined way too much militarily.

We did a lot of those things. We accomplished a lot in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan's leadership. I am absolutely amazed when I look back at when Ronald Reagan was elected, and when I was elected. The maximum tax rate was 70 percent, and 8 years later it was 28 percent. I am still amazed at that. What an unbelievable accomplishment. I remember how it was accomplished. It took a lot of strong

leadership and work by Howard Baker and Bob Dole. It took working with other people. I remember Bill Bradley working on some of these tax bills. That was a big change.

I came from a business background and, oh, yes, if you made some money, you can be taxed all the way to 70 percent on the individual side, and 80 percent on the corporate side. You were working more for the Government than you were yourself. To me, that represented a real loss of personal and economic freedom. I wanted to restore economic freedom for all Americans and be part of that change.

My father, unfortunately, died in 1961. We had a small family-held business. The Government contested, basically, my mother and our family for 7 years over the value of Nickles Machine Corporation. They wanted a big chunk of that business. I always resented that. I thought Government was supposed to protect private property; not confiscate it.

On the 1981 tax bill, I remember talking to Secretary Don Regan when I said: We really should eliminate the estate tax on surviving spouses--and we made sure that was included in the 1981 tax bill. I am probably as proud of that as any other thing. I had a little something to do with a very profamily, very probusiness, very progrowth-oriented bill becoming law. That success told me that we could accomplish great things here.

Of the 18 Senators who were elected with me in 1980, there are only 3 left. Chris Dodd is still here, Chuck Grassley is now chairman of the Finance Committee, and Arlen Specter will be chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Only 3 of the 18 are left.

I respect them greatly, and I compliment them for their many years of service.

Over the years, I've had many great mentors. I mentioned Bob Dole and Howard Baker. I'll mention one other one with fond affection. That would be Senator Jesse Helms. I remember one time when we were engaged in a filibuster, and I encouraged the Senate not to have many filibusters, but that is the first one I can remember. I believe it was 1982 or 1983. This was a little filibuster on the Nickles gasoline tax. Some of us believed that the States should do it rather than the Federal Government. Three of us were opposed to that: Senator Helms, Senator East, and myself. That was when the filibuster was a real filibuster. We spent the night on cots outside the Senate Chamber.

I remember laying awake at night somewhat nervous. The heart was still beating, and I remember some grumbling amongst some of our colleagues who weren't very happy about the fact that we were here in late December arguing over a Nickles gasoline tax. I remember that this wasn't quite worth falling on the sword over.

I communicated that to my friends and colleagues, Senator Helms and Senator East. I eventually convinced Senator Helms, and it took a little longer to convince Senator East, and we dropped the filibuster.

What I wanted to say about Senator Helms is I remember that we had a lot of discussions during these times. We were actually in session two or three nights around the clock. He told me something I will never forget, which I will pass along to our colleagues.

He said: Don, when I am flying over North Carolina and I look around and see all those lights, I am amazed at how many people live in that State and how many people there are, particularly in rural areas. And I wonder if those people think they have anybody in DC who really cares about them, and probably most of them don't think anybody cares about them. He was just as genuine as he could possibly be.

When I am on a plane at night looking out at the lights and see how big our cities, towns, and rural areas are, I think about that. Do the people in those areas really think somebody is fighting for them, working for them? Jesse Helms is one of those individuals. He is very special. He had a reputation of being kind of tough and mean, but personally he is probably one of the nicest Senators with whom I have had the pleasure of working. He knew everybody who worked the elevators. He was nice to the staff. He was a gentleman's gentleman. I understand his health is not real good right now, so my thoughts are with him, and I wish him all the best at this time. He was a great Senator. He knew the rules of the Senate, and he would fight for what he believed in, and he would fight with tenacity. He also was a Senator's Senator, and I'm am fortunate to say I have had the pleasure of serving with many colleagues who fall into that category.

I came here with a real interest in trying to change things in the energy field. I served on the Energy Committee, but I wanted to make some changes. I ran and maybe was elected in large part because of some of the things that Congress was passing in 1978 and 1979 and 1980 with which I just totally disagreed. One of those was the windfall profits tax. I campaigned vigorously against it. I wanted to repeal it. I was disappointed that I couldn't get it repealed in 1981, or in 1982. I introduced legislation every single year. We finally got it repealed in 1986.

As I told somebody last night, it was $77 billion too late. But eventually it was repealed.

We did some other things that I think were very positive--undoing some of the things that were passed in the last couple of years of the Carter administration.

We deregulated natural gas. I did that working with Wendell Ford and Bennett Johnston on the Energy bill. That was very positive, significant legislation that one of my predecessors, Bob Kerr, had worked on 20 years before. We got that done.

We repealed the fuel use tax. We eliminated the Synfuels Corporation. The Synfuels Corporation was run by an Oklahoman who ran against me, Ed Nobel. He ran against me in 1980. Ronald Reagan appointed him chairman of the Synfuels Corporation. I campaigned to eliminate it, which we eventually did.

I have had a lot of fun in this capacity. In the mid-1980s, I was appointed to the Appropriations Committee. I have great, fond memories of that. The Democrat leader, Harry Reid, was my colleague on two or three committees. I think we both were either chairman or ranking, and we switched back and forth a couple of times on the District of Columbia Appropriations Committee, our penance, and the Interior subcommittee, which either Senator Reid or Senator Byrd was chairman and/or ranking members. We worked together on those committees for years.

We did a lot of good things together, such as reforming the frank so you couldn't mail out thousands and thousands of pieces of mail, particularly prior to election time.

Harry Reid is my friend and his word is as good as gold. He will be a good leader for the Democrats, and he will be a good Senator for Senator Frist and Senator McConnell to work with to get things accomplished. So I am excited about his elevation.

I was selected by our colleagues to be campaign chairman back in 1989 and 1990, one of the tougher jobs. I compliment George Allen for the fine job he did this year. I compliment Bill Frist for the fine job he did in that position, and Mitch McConnell when he had that position. It is probably one of the toughest elected positions we have in leadership, but one which I thoroughly enjoyed. The reason I enjoyed it is you work hard, and you get to know your colleagues. We get so busy around this place we often don't get to know our colleagues. If you are campaigning with somebody, if you are spending the night, as I did at Gordon Smith's home in Oregon, or campaigning in Maine with Senator Snowe or Senator Collins, or if you are campaigning in Minnesota, or when you campaign with people and you are traveling with them for a day or two, or in Montana on a bus tour with Conrad Burns and his wife Phyllis, you get to know them.

I have gotten to know our colleagues well. I think I have been in almost everybody's State, at least on our side of the aisle, campaigning. I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know my colleagues. The Senate is composed of a great group of individuals, Democrats and Republicans, and we need to get to know each other better. I think if we get to know each other better, our body works better and we will do better.

After that, I was fortunate enough to be elected policy chairman. I had that position for 6 years, and it was another job I absolutely loved. I succeeded Bill

Armstrong, and I was fortunate to keep some of his staff, some of the best staff on the Hill, I might add. They stayed with me, and I appreciate that. Eric Ueland and Doug Badger would fit in that category, and they were outstanding.

Bill Armstrong is another one of my mentors. I met with Bill Armstrong and a couple of other Senators in a prayer group once a week for 12 years. He is probably the most articulate Senator I have had the pleasure of serving with, an outstanding leader. I wish he would have continued his service. He decided to return to the private sector, and since I am doing that, I respect that greatly. But I have always looked up to him because he was a man of conviction, and he got things done.

Let me add, Jon Kyl who is now the policy chairman, and there could not be a better policy chairman, is doing a fantastic job, a very important job. I compliment him for his leadership.

After that position--and I thank my colleagues for giving me that responsibility--I served 6 years as assistant majority leader, and I guess at some point maybe assistant minority leader. It was a great honor and a pleasure to work with Trent Lott, which I enjoyed greatly. Trent did a fantastic job as our Republican leader, and I'd like to take this opportunity to commend him on his outstanding service. Mitch McConnell has my old post now, and he is doing a super job. Again, it is a position where you get to know your colleagues really well. You not only learn how to count votes, but you find out what makes people tick and where they are coming from, what they are trying to accomplish, and what they are trying to do. And Mitch McConnell is doing a fantastic job in that capacity.

During my tenure in the Senate, we have had the pleasure of passing a lot of legislation. I am fortunate to have so many colleagues who have helped me do some things that I think have become good laws.

The Republicans took control of the Senate in the 1994 elections, and in 1995 I think the first bill we passed was the Congressional Accountability Act that Senator Grassley and a lot of Democrats and Republicans passed. We worked hard on that. I am glad to see that happened.

We passed the Congressional Review Act that Senator Reid was my principal Democrat sponsor on, where we could review expensive and expansive Federal regulations. We actually used that to repeal the ergonomics rule which the Clinton administration tried to pass in the last couple of days of their term. Although he supported the regulation, Senator Reid, to his credit, defended the Congressional Review Act which is still the law of the land. We used that to repeal what I felt was a very intrusive, expensive, and unwarranted regulation. Again, that is another case where Senator Reid stated--he did not agree with repealing the regulation, but he defended the law we repealed it with, and some people were trying to undermine that.

Senator Lieberman and I passed the Defense of Marriage Act, an act that became a little more noteworthy in the last year or two. I thank Senator Lieberman for his help and leadership on that issue. Bill Clinton signed that bill. I am not sure he wanted to, but he did sign it in the wee hours of 1996. That act is still the law of the land. It basically says States do not have to recognize other States' legalization of same sex marriage. Some States have legalized gay marriage, which is their prerogative, but due to our bill other States do not have to recognize that. Some people presume that it will be declared unconstitutional. I hope it is not. I would be disappointed if the Supreme Court did overrule that. That bill passed with 80-some-odd votes in the Senate and still is the law of the land.

We passed the International Religious Freedom Act. Again, I say ``we.'' Senator Lieberman joined me in passing that bill. We passed that in 1998, and it is now the law of the land. It is very important that we note countries that are very repressive and oppressive in stifling religious freedom. Unfortunately, we have seen such oppression in many countries around the world. That kind of bigotry is the genesis of a lot of the hatred and violence and the wars we are fighting today.

We have ensured, with the passage of this act, that the State Department will be much more proactive in not only identifying cases of religious intolerance and persecution, but will take proactive steps to change such behavior as a matter of U.S. policy.

Senator Landrieu and I passed, in 2000, the Child Citizenship Act, which basically grants citizenship to foreign born children who are adopted. I think 150,000 children became citizens in one day as a result of that act, and I am greatly pleased to have been a part of that success.

I have had the pleasure for the last couple of years of being chairman of the Budget Committee. I look back at some of our accomplishments, and I have to think maybe those were some of the best in my career as a Senator.

The budget we passed in 2003 was a real challenge. We probably spent more days, more hours, and had more votes on the 2003 Budget Act than any other Budget Act in history. I think we had 80-some-odd votes. It took more than a week. It took about a week and a half, almost 2 weeks, on the floor.

I compliment Senator Zell Miller for his assistance in that. We passed that budget with the Vice President breaking the tie. That was not easily done. We defeated numerous amendments, and were successful in passing a budget that allowed us to have the opportunity to have an economic growth package. President Bush was nice enough to ask me to introduce the package and to try to carry it, and we did. Again, Zell Miller was the principal cosponsor with me of the bill, the growth package. We introduced that package in January of 2003. We passed it in June of 2003.

When we first took up that legislation, the Dow Jones was at about 7,700. Today, the Dow Jones is over 10,500. We wanted to pass that package so we could stimulate the economy because it was, at that time, pretty anemic. Government receipts were still down. We wanted to get something to grow the economy. We passed that package, and not only did the stock market go up, receipts are up, and we have created a couple million jobs since then.

We accelerated the tax cuts that were slowly being phased in from the 2001 tax bill. So now we have a maximum rate of 35 percent. Although some people say that is too much of a giveaway, it is the same rate the corporations pay, and I do not think individuals or self-employed people should pay a higher rate than Exxon or General Motors. So we passed that.

We also passed a 15-percent tax on capital gains and a 15-percent tax on corporate distributions, dividends, which I firmly believe has greatly helped not just the market but the economy. So I am proud of that.

I am proud of Zell Miller because he had the courage to be a cosponsor, to stand up and fight for those things and make them become law. It also made a $1,000 tax credit per child become law. It also eliminated or greatly reduced the marriage penalty on married couples. If they have taxable income of $58,000, that is $900 of tax relief. Those are positive things. It would not have happened without Zell Miller.

Zell Miller only served 4 years in the Senate. He replaced a very dear friend of all of ours, Paul Coverdell. I mourned Paul Coverdell's loss, and I stated at the time he cannot be replaced; and he certainly cannot be replaced. But Zell Miller has been one outstanding addition to this body. He is a great patriot, not a great Democrat or a great Republican, he is a great patriot, and he stands for what he believes in, and he helped us enact these measures which are vitally important.

I also read in the Washington Post today that somebody said, well, the Budget Act is not working, and so on, and there is no discipline in Congress. Frankly, they don't know what they are talking about. I hate to tell them that.

They also said we did not pass a budget this year. Well, they don't quite know what they are talking about there either. In the last 2 years, thanks to the collective will of this body, we have made 82 budget points of order--in the last 2 years--78 of which were sustained. I voted to waive a couple of them. We defeated $1.7 trillion of additional spending over a 10-year period on those 78 budget points of order.

The Budget Act did work. We passed a budget through the Senate earlier

this year that had domestic discretionary spending at $821.9 billion.

I am confident that when the leader brings up an Omnibus bill this year, it is going to meet that goal of $821.9 billion. That is several billion dollars less than a lot of people wanted.

I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens. I have wrestled with him every day on appropriations bills. But Senator Stevens helped us pass the 821.9 cap on the DOD Appropriations bill. I could not get the budget resolution to pass. We passed it through the Senate and through the House. I could not get the conference report adopted. That was one of my disappointments.

One of our accomplishments, as most people didn't know, was we did put in the spending cap on the DOD Appropriations bill and we are enforcing that cap and we are abiding by that cap today. So I wanted people to know that. I also thank people such as Thad Cochran and Senator Specter, because they enforced the cap as chairmen of their respective Appropriations subcommittees, probably more than anyone. I didn't have to make the points of order; they did it. It worked. We have nondiscretionary and nonhomeland security growing at less than 1 percent this year, compared to a 14-percent growth a few years ago in President Clinton's last years. Yes, we are spending a lot of money in defense and homeland security, no doubt about it.

Are the deficits too high? You bet. Are they coming down? You bet. The deficit this year was finalized at 400-something, over $100 billion less than the administration projected 9 months ago; and that is because revenues are up and the economy is growing. The changes we passed in 2001 are working significantly.

I project, and CBO projects, they will continue to climb by another $100 billion in the next year or so. Is the war expensive? Yes. Is it worth it? You bet. Is the war on terrorism worth it? Yes.

Earlier this year--I would say this was a real highlight--I went to Iraq and Afghanistan with Senators Sessions and Lieberman. I have done a lot of things, and I have been to a lot of places around the world, but I cannot tell you how proud I was to be in Iraq, basically when there was a transition of power, when Mr. Allawi assumed control of Iraq.

We met with the Defense Minister and he said: Yes, we want to protect our country. When we met with our military leadership and theirs, we were in the process of training 210,000 Iraqis, and we had a chance to meet with Iraqis there that are hungry for freedom and thankful for our support and eager to assume and take control.

They are talking about elections in January, and I am hopeful and prayerful that those will be successful. I believe they will be. Senator Sessions and I also went to Afghanistan and met with now- President Karzai. It was around July 4. They were scheduled to have elections in October. They did that and he was elected overwhelmingly.

The success we have had in Afghanistan has been absolutely phenomenal. I remember well the debates here, with many people saying: You are going to be involved in a quagmire; you will never be able to have democracy. You cannot get in there. The Soviets were there 10 years and lost tens of thousands of troops. You are going to do the same thing.

Frankly, our military was successful, working with the Afghan northern alliance and other Afghan people who wanted freedom in Afghanistan. We basically helped them take control of that country with a few hundred troops on the ground and our Air Force. We have liberated Afghanistan. They have had elections and they have proved they can have a democracy. They will have parliamentary elections early next year.

So the success we have had and have seen in Afghanistan is restoring freedom to millions of people there. I believe we are in the process of restoring freedom and liberating the Iraqi people for the long run so the Iraqis can control their own destiny. If you look at those things, we have had an outburst, an outgrowth of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address:

This Nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom.

This country is largely responsible for not only this country having a new birth of freedom, but frankly countries throughout the world, in our own hemisphere and in the former Soviet bloc, and now even in places as remote as Afghanistan and Iraq. To have been able to play a small part in that over these last 24 years has been a real pleasure.

I thank my constituents, the people of Oklahoma, for giving me the opportunity and the privilege to serve them for the last 24 years. I thank my family, and especially my wife for her tolerance in allowing me to do this for the last 24 years. I thank my colleagues who I have had the pleasure of serving with and working with and the pleasure of knowing. Frankly, my best friends are my colleagues. I have spent a long time here and I have absolutely loved this work. I love the Senate.

I think the Senate is in very good hands. My replacement is Dr. Tom Coburn. I am honored that an active physician would leave his career and serve in the Senate. We have not seen it often. We saw it with Dr. Bill Frist, and I am so grateful that he set aside his career as a talented physician to serve in the Senate. I am delighted he is the majority leader. He has done a fantastic job. I am delighted Dr. Coburn has left his profession to serve in the Senate. What a great addition to the Senate. I have had the pleasure of working with Jim Inhofe, and I see Jim and Tom Coburn doing an outstanding job in representing our State.

I look at the leadership in the Senate today with Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, John Kyl, and the rest of the team on this side, and with Harry Reid and others on the Democrat side, and I see good things ahead for the Senate, positive things.

I have been so fortunate also to have what I have often said are the best staff on the Hill. I have truly been blessed. I have many staff members who have been with me for a long time.

Looking to my left is Bret Bernhardt, my chief of staff, who has worked with me for over 20 years. Hazen Marshall came in as an intern many, many years ago, and he is now chief of staff on the Budget Committee. Nobody knows the budget or taxes any better than Hazen Marshall. Both of these men are true professionals.

I have so many people to thank. I cannot go down the whole list. I will recognize some who have been with me for over 20 years. In my Oklahoma City office, there is Joey Bradford, who worked for me going back to Nickles Machine Corporation in 1978 to 1979. She is still with me. She will be the last person to turn out the lights. She is a wonderful person. Jo Stansberry goes way back. She was my secretary when I was a State senator in 1978, bless her heart. She is the sweetest person you will ever know. She is still with me today. Also, in my Oklahoma City office, Judy Albro and Maurie Cole have been with me almost the entire time. Sharon Keasler has been running my Tulsa office for over 20 years.

In my DC office, Zev Teichman and Cynthia Singleton have been with me the entire time.

They are wonderful people and true public servants, all of whom could have done much better financially on the private side, but they have stayed with us on the public side, as well as many others.

I look at our staff and we still have most of the staff still with us. I am grateful for that. They are all anxious about new careers, and they have been generous with their time and very loyal in their support, not just to me but to the people of Oklahoma and to this institution called the Senate. The Senate is a very special place.

I also would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge two or three other people who have had a profound and positive impact on my life. One is Doug Coe. Some of our colleagues know him very well. Doug Coe was a friend, brother, and mentor whom I respect and love greatly. He is also a golfer, and that is my favorite vice, I guess. Most golfers play for a little money. Doug would say, ``I will play you for a Bible verse.'' We would do it and, of course, I would lose--predestined from on high. I will never forget when Doug said here is a verse for you to memorize. It was, I think, John 13:34: ``A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.'' He made me learn that. I learned it in, I think, about 1981 or something. He has been a very positive guiding light. I have tried

to keep that commandment in my heart when I am on this floor and conducting my business, and it is good advice. I wanted to thank him.

Also, I will mention a couple other people. One is Dick Halverson, the first Senate Chaplain with whom I had the pleasure working. He was maybe one of the most Christlike persons I have ever known. Lloyd Ogilvie, who succeeded him, was a great mentor. He led many of us in our Bible studies for years. He is a wonderful, wonderful brother and friend. And now Barry Black. Barry Black, when he was giving the prayer today, said we may seek to accomplish causes beyond our lifetime. And he is so right. That is what the Senate is about. It is about causes. It is about things that can have consequences, that can have real meaning beyond our lifetime eternally.

So I thank God for the opportunity and the privilege and the pleasure to serve in this great body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in complimenting Senator Daschle for his years of service. I did not really know Tom Daschle when he served in the House. I have had the pleasure of serving with him for the last 18 years in the Senate. Many of those we were both in leadership, and I will just say our relationship has always been very good.

Having the pleasure of working with Tom Daschle and Harry Reid, both for whom I have great respect, many times we were political adversaries, but we were always friends. We never had a heated exchange, maybe elevated on occasion, but we always were friends and we could always shake hands at the time we might have somewhat of a heated discussion. We would always remain friends, and he continues to be my friend to this day.

I compliment him for his many years of public service to his State of South Dakota, for his service in the House of Representatives, his service to the Senate, and his service as the Democrat leader. He is a very competent individual, speaker, and representative of his viewpoint, and he happens to be my friend. I wish Tom Daschle and his wife Linda all the best for the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of comments regarding the departure of one of our colleagues, Senator Zell Miller. I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Miller for the last several years and I think the world of him. He comes from a great line of fantastic Senators from the great State of Georgia.

When I was first elected, I served with Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Mack Mattingly. Both were very good friends. Both were outstanding Senators. Senator Paul Coverdell, a very good, close friend of mine, served in the Senate for a little over a term and, unfortunately, had a very sudden illness and passed away. Zell Miller was appointed to take his place.

I remember thinking at the time that Paul Coverdell was a great loss to the Senate. I believe that today. He had a great future in the Senate. He was actually elected to the Senate leadership, which was very unusual for his first term in the Senate. Paul Coverdell was one of my closest friends. I really did mourn his loss.

I did not know his replacement appointed at that time, Zell Miller, but I got to know him very quickly. I grew to know him, respect him, and admire him as a patriot and as a Senator. He did a fantastic job in service not only to his state of Georgia but, frankly, to this country. He made a valued, positive, and considerable impact on the Senate and, frankly, on our country. I will talk about that for a second.

I remember he was a real leader in passing the Homeland Security legislation. That was very tough legislation. It passed by a very narrow margin. We did that in his first year in the Senate.

He supported efforts to enact tax reform. I was chairman of the Committee on the Budget in 2003, and we passed a budget, frankly, by one vote. Zell Miller's vote helped make it happen. We had about 80 something amendments to the budget during consideration of the budget process. Zell Miller was with me on every one. He cosponsored the budget. He was my principal cosponsor of that budget.

That budget enabled us to pass the tax relief we did later that year, the economic tax reform bill of 2003. That bill made a lot of changes, I might add, a lot of positive changes, that would not have passed had it not been for Zell Miller. He cosponsored that bill with me. I was honored the President asked me to sponsor it, and I was honored to ask Zell Miller if he would cosponsor it with me, and he did.

We defeated a lot of amendments designed to gut the legislation, and we passed the budget. Again, we passed it with the Vice President breaking the tie. It would not have passed without Zell Miller's leadership, without his sponsoring the legislation.

What did that legislation do? It made a difference on every American taxpayer in this country. That legislation allowed us to have a $1,000 tax credit per child. That legislation allowed us to expand and provide marriage penalty relief. For a couple making $58,000, marriage penalty relief boiled down to about $905. That passed because Zell Miller stood with us on that legislation.

It also allowed us to reduce the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 15 percent. It allowed us to say that we would not double tax corporate dividends, at least not as punitively as we did before. We reduced the corporate tax on dividends. Actually, the bill we passed in the Senate had zero double taxation. The bill that came out of conference was 15 percent, instead of the ordinary rates. That is a big and positive change because this country, unfortunately, taxed distributions from corporations higher than any other country. We are tied with Japan at a net effective tax rate of 70 percent.

Why would corporations distribute earnings to their owners if the Government would get 70 percent? Many did not. They would accumulate earnings, hide the money, or do something different with them. We passed that legislation, and now people are paying dividends.

Microsoft announced a multibillion-dollar distribution because of that legislation. We tax it now at the individual rate, 15 percent. When we started marking up that legislation, the Dow Jones was at 7,700. Today it is over 10,500. That legislation made a difference. That legislation passed because Zell Miller stood with us on the floor to pass that legislation.

It is not too often you can actually say you passed legislation that made a real and positive impact. There are over two million jobs that have been created in the last 14 months as a result of that legislation. I believe the President signed it in June of 2003. It has been almost a year and a half now, and a couple of million jobs have been created since we passed that legislation. The economy is moving. Revenues are coming into the Government. The deficit is $100 billion less than estimated previously, 9 months ago, because, there is economic revival. We do have new jobs being created. There are positive signs. A lot of that happened because of the courage and conviction of the Senator from Georgia.

I said Paul Coverdell was my friend. He has certainly been missed in this Senate, and that is a fact. I will also say that Zell Miller is my very dear friend and he will be missed in the Senate. He only served for a few years in the Senate, but he had a great impact, a very positive impact, not only on taxpayers, and the country but to our body politic, the body of the country. As a patriot, a former marine, former mayor, former State senator, former Lieutenant Governor, and as a former Governor, he had enormous impact.

He was a speaker at the Republican National Convention. I told him his speech wasn't so much that of a Democrat or Republican; his speech was that of a patriot who was speaking out strong because he believed strongly in this country. You could see it. You could sense it. You could believe it.

I am very proud to have Zell Miller as my friend. He and his wife Shirley have been a blessing to this body and a blessing to this country. I thank God for the fact I had the opportunity to serve with him and the fact that he served in this body. I think our country is much better for it, and I wish him every good wish in the years ahead.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of comments regarding my very good friend, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who is retiring with me at the end of this session. Senator Campbell is a unique Senator. All Senators are unique, but he is especially unique. He is a very special Senator, the only Native American presently serving in the Senate and he is chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee.

He has a very distinguished career. He was in the Air Force. He served in Korea. He served in the State legislature. He served in the House of Representatives. I believe he was elected in 1986. He was elected to the Senate as a Democrat in 1992, 12 years ago. He was reelected in 1998. In March of 1995, he had the courage and the conviction to change parties. That is not easily done. He did it and I greatly respect him and admire him for that, but also for his service to our country.

He is a jewelry designer.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Ben Nighthorse Campbell and his wife, Linda, fairly well for the last 12 years. I have great respect for him. He has passed a lot of legislation. A lot of people are not aware of that. Many of his bills have become law. In many cases, he is a quiet legislator. He is effective and he gets things done.

He is on the Appropriations Committee. He has had his fingerprints on a lot of legislation. He is chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. That committee considers a multitude of issues. Some of us kind of moved around and made way for him to become chairman of that committee. We thought it was very special to have a Native American become chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee for the first time.

He is unique from the standpoint that he rides a Harley. He has a great love for the West.

I think he has made a valuable, important contribution to this body, the Senate.

He has represented his State of Colorado very well. Colorado has had some great Senators. Bill Armstrong was one of my favorite Senators and one of my mentors. Wayne Allard is another outstanding Senator from Colorado. Ben Nighthorse Campbell certainly falls in that role of being an outstanding Senator. I think he and Linda both will be missed in this body, the Senate.

I congratulate him and Linda for their many years of service going all the way back to the military, to the State legislature, to serving in the House of Representatives, and now 12 years in the Senate. He has given a lot of public service to this country, and given it well. He has served well. As the Bible says, ``Well done thou good and faithful servant''. He has certainly done that. He has made the State of Colorado very proud and, frankly, the country very proud. The Senate is better off for his service. I congratulate him for his service.

The Senate will miss the services and the laughter of Ben Nighthorse Campbell. I compliment him for his service.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 1986.

This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2004 budget through September 30, 2004. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2004 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, H. Con. Res. 95, as adjusted.

The estimates show that current level spending is above the budget resolution by $10.126 billion in budget authority and by $31 million in outlays in 2004. Current level for revenues is $3.115 billion above the budget resolution in 2004.

Since my last report dated September 13, 2004, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, Part V (P.L. 108-310), which changed budget authority for 2004.

This is my final report for fiscal 2004.

I ask unanimous consent the report be printed in the Record.

I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments on the bill and a couple of comments on the amendment which has been discussed by Senator Landrieu and Senator Boxer.

On the bill itself, let me just say, again, I want to compliment Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, and, frankly, all the conferees, for their work on this bill. There was a lot of work that went in on this bill. This bill has a lot of good provisions, and in this Senator's opinion it has a lot of bad provisions. It has a lot of tax cuts, and it has a lot of tax increases. So you have to kind of weigh the pluses and the minuses. The plus is we are going to be WTO compliant and get away from these enormous fees that are on our exports, taxes that are on our exports that make our exports less competitive. It is a 12-percent tax right now, that goes to 17 percent by next March. We don't need a trade war with Europe.

I remember talking to Chancellor Helmut Kohl when they were pushing the European Union. I said: I am a little concerned about the European Union becoming more protectionist. He assured me that is not the case. But, frankly, the European Union is becoming more protectionist. We don't need a trade war. They don't need a trade war, and we don't need a trade war. So it is necessary for us to pass a bill to be compliant. I don't want to give the World Trade Organization too much of a blank check, but it is important that export subsidies not be egregious. They have determined in the past FSC/ETI was; the foreign sales corporation was. So we repealed that in this bill.

We are replacing it with a tax cut for manufacturers. We defined ``manufacturers'' very broadly. We didn't give a corporate tax cut for corporations that are in the services, financial services or other services. I object to that. I think that is a mistake. I used to be a manufacturer, so if I went back into manufacturing I guess I should say this is great because you are going to reduce my income tax by 10 percent in about 7 years, 6 or 7 years. So maybe I should be happy. But I just look at the complexity of it, trying to determine what portion of income is manufacturing and what portion is financial or other services, and I can see it is going to be very confusing.

For example, in the bill we defined construction as manufacturing. So if you had a contractor who was working in construction, their tax rate would be 32 percent in a few years. If they also do service work, that work will be taxed at 35 percent, i.e., a plumbing contractor who is building new units is going to be taxed at 32 percent. If he is doing a service, replacing your plumbing, that would be taxed at 35 percent. That doesn't make sense. That is what is in this bill.

Take a big corporation--and they have a lot of accountants and lawyers--they will work it out. But General Electric, they have big manufacturing. Those units will be taxed at 32 percent, but they are probably bigger in financial services and other services. That will be taxed at 35 percent. So they are going to have to allocate resources and expenses to whichever category they belong. I find that to be far too confusing and will cause a lot of compliance problems. It is probably more trouble than it is worth.

Canada had a differential rate for manufacturing for about 20 years, and they repealed it. My guess and prediction is that Congress will come back and have to fix this as well because the differential rate is not worth it, and we should have a uniform corporate rate.

I tried that. Senator Kyl tried that. I compliment my colleague, Senator Kyl. We were not successful in convincing our colleagues, House or Senate, in doing it. That being said, we tried our best. But it is still important for us to pass this bill, and we and others will be trying in the future, I am sure. I hope in the administration, when they do a comprehensive tax reform proposal, they will come up with a uniform corporate rate. I bet they will, and I bet any commission or group that says we need tax overhaul, simplification, they will come up with a uniform corporate rate. It only makes sense. This proposal does not, this differential rate.

But we are not going to be able to fix that now, and we can't fix it in the next 3 months, not with the current makeup. So I urge our colleagues to vote for it.

I heard a couple of our colleagues say this provision Senator Landrieu was talking about was stripped in the conference. That is not correct. Not one member of the conference--we have 23 Senate conferees, and not one person raised this in an individual amendment. I will say all conferees had amendments that we wanted. Some were accepted and some were not accepted. But to be accepted, you had to raise the amendment. You had to fight for the amendment. You had to have it offered. I think this particular amendment was offered in a large group of 10 or 12 amendments. The House did not concur. That didn't mean it was stripped out in conference. There were hundreds of amendments that were proposed by the Senate, not agreed to by the House, or vice versa. That is the makeup of a conference. So I want to make sure people understand that.

On the substance of the bill, I heard it was supported by 100 percent of the Congress. It passed by a voice vote. It was not supported by this Senator. On the substance of it, I am not sure that we should give reservists and guardsmen serving in the trenches with Active-Duty--give them $20,000 more or $15,000 more in pay from the Government. That is what the essence of the proposal was.

It says we will give a credit to employers for keeping them whole. But think about it. If you have a guardsman driving a truck doing the same thing an Active-Duty person is doing, should they be paid $20,000 more for doing the exact same job? I am not sure that makes sense. I do know, if you are going to do it--Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.

If we are going to do it, we should not do it through the Tax Code. I believe it should be done through the Armed Services Committee. I have great respect for Chairman Warner and Senator Levin. Let them have hearings on it. Let them decide if there should be greater incentives for Guard and Reserve. If they believe it is necessary, that is the way it should be done. The money should be appropriated in the Appropriations Committee. Chairman Stevens, head of the DOD subcommittee--they should be making these decisions to keep a proper balance between Reserve and Active-Duty.

I happen to be a former guardsman. I support the Guard. But I don't think they should be paid through a tax credit that may funnel to them or may not funnel to them. I don't think that is good policy. If they are to be paid, they should be paid by the Government and they should be paid on a monthly basis by the Government and their benefits should be given by the Government, not through a refundable tax credit that they may or may not receive down the road.

We sometimes pass amendments by voice vote to expedite passage. We passed the sense-of-the-Senate amendment by voice vote, and I compliment the authors. But I would have voted no. Just because something passes by voice doesn't mean every Senator concurs. I did not and still do not agree with this amendment.

I do agree with one portion of it, and I compliment my colleague from Louisiana. We worked to make something acceptable. Legislation is the art of compromise. We compromised on one thing. One section is let's have GAO do a study about what kind of compensation we need for Guard and Reserve: How does it balance with the Regular Army? A tax credit, would this be the proper mix? So I think we need some additional study on it, and we will do that. I think we improved her amendment substantially, we changed it substantially, and I compliment her as well.

Again, on final passage, I think the underlying product leaves a lot to be desired, but I still think it is an improvement. We need to fix the WTO problem, and I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I want to speak a little bit about the conference report and maybe a little bit about Senator Landrieu's amendment.

First, I wish to compliment Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their leadership on this bill. The FSC/ETI bill was a very complicated bill. The Senate provisions alone--there were 276 provisions--dealt with about $180 billion of tax increases and tax cuts, a very complicated bill, very confusing bill. It had international provisions. But it was very important that we move forward, and we moved forward to basically--I started to say--become compliant with the World Trade Organization because they were imposing sanctions on U.S. exports, fees of 12 percent escalating 1 percent per month going up to 17 percent. So it was important that we resolve that problem.

Most people think the conference report solves that situation. I compliment them for it. The bill that came back from conference was a better bill than left the Senate--frankly, a much better bill. There are a lot fewer provisions. There were many amendments that were left out. I know the Senator from Louisiana is upset about her amendment being left out. There were hundreds of amendments left out, some of which have a lot of merit, some probably didn't have merit. I don't happen to agree with her amendment, and I want to touch on that for a second.

First, I want to finish on the FSC/ETI bill. The underlying premise of the FSC/ETI bill--which I am going to support, and I urge our colleagues to vote for cloture so we can finish this bill--is that we are going to give a benefit to manufacturers, a lower corporate rate than other corporations. I happen to disagree with that. I used to be a manufacturer. I used to run a manufacturing company, Nickles Machine Corporation. We made engine parts. We sold them around the world. Manufacturers get a lower rate, and we do it in this bill in the form of not a rate reduction but in the form of an exclusion of income. I think a rate would be a much simpler way to go, and I think it should apply to all corporations.

What we do in this bill is, we give an exclusion for a certain amount of income, I think 3 percent the first 2 years, 6 percent the next 3 years, and then 9 percent beyond that. The net effect of that for most corporations is, the corporate rate would go into effect 34 percent and then 33 percent and then 32 percent, if you are a manufacturer. If you are not a manufacturer but happen to be a corporation, in other words, you do professional services, maybe an attorney or maybe a doctor or something, or you have an accounting firm or you have a financial firm, if you have financial services, you are going to be taxed at a higher rate.

I think we should have a uniform corporate rate. It is a mistake. You have a lot of companies that do both. They are a manufacturer and they provide financial services or they provide other services. So you are going to find them having to segregate their income--this part is manufacturing, this part is financial or other services. That is going to mean asking for a lot of audits, a lot of confusion, and maybe problems with the IRS and future Congresses. Future Congresses also will be dabbling with the definition of manufacturer because there are a lot of people defined in this bill as manufacturers that a lot of us wouldn't think of as manufacturers; i.e., individuals involved in architectural engineering, or individuals or companies that are construction or software companies or oil companies or extraction companies. There are software companies, the film industry. You have a lot of industries that aren't normally thought of as manufacturing and are now defined as manufacturing.

When people realize there is a 10-percent lower corporate rate if you are defined as a manufacturer, my guess is you will have a lot of future interest and amendments. The lobbyists will be very big trying to make sure that whoever their client is is defined as a manufacturer. So the number of manufacturing jobs, which has been on a fairly steady decline for the last 40 years--it has bounced up in the last year--will increase dramatically, not because there are more manufacturing jobs, but because more jobs are defined as manufacturing. I don't think that is good policy.

I have mentioned that. I know Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus are well aware of my concerns. I tried to fight that fight along with Senator Kyl. We were not successful. We tried every way we could, but we didn't win on that one. But it is important that we become WTO compliant. It is important that we pass a bill. I don't think we are going to solve the problem I am talking about in differentials in the next 3 months or, frankly, the next 6 months. So I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of it.

In relation to the Landrieu amendment, her discussion on it, I appreciate her passion. But no one on her side raised this amendment. I sat in the conference for days. She had her chance. There were hundreds of amendments that were not adopted. I don't happen to agree with the substance of her amendment. But everyone was entitled to have their chance. Chairman Grassley insisted on having the entire Finance Committee represented in the conference. I compliment him for that. It was a very open, fair conference. All Senators who were on the Finance Committee were represented, were there, or could have attended. So again, sometimes you don't win on your amendments.

I compliment again Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of cloture.

recusal

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I need to know a little bit more about the amendment. The tax credit goes to the employers. Is there any guarantee that money, the tax credit--let's say $20,000 for the service man or woman-- goes to the service man or woman. How do we know that happens? Is there a delay before they would benefit from those dollars?

I am not sure it is written that way. I am not sure it is a requirement that an employer has to give the money immediately to a service man or woman. I suspect that is your intent. I don't believe that is the way the amendment is written. I would like to know more about it.

I have a different question. If the amendment were agreed to, you would be paying substantially more for a man or woman serving side by side--let us say in Iraq or Afghanistan in combat a situation, the Federal Government would be paying significantly more for that reservist than they are for the Active-duty. How much differential should we pay? Is that equitable for the thousands of people who are Active-Duty to be paid less than the Reserves when their lives are at risk equally, when they are in the same trenches doing the same job?

Will the Senator yield further?

I understand the Senator didn't like my first question because she is trying to give the Guard and Reserve additional compensation and additional pay but through a tax credit which goes to their employer which may take some time to get directly to the guardsmen or reservists who have been activated. If you want to pay them more, why don't you pay them more? Why don't you move an amendment through the DOD authorization bill? We did just last night under the good work of Chairman Warner--or pay more through the Appropriations Committee so they would be paid on a monthly basis. I am not sure I agree with the Senator that there should be a differential. She may make an eloquent argument, but if she feels compelled they should be paid more, pay them more. But don't you think there is something lost by giving a tax credit that may or may not be funneled to the employees? It may take some time. There may be some lag. There may be some fraud, or it might not happen. But if you want to pay them more, pay them more.

Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment, both in substance and on procedure, and procedure may be more important.

First, on the substance, I question the wisdom of whether we want to have in our active combat forces and our Reserve forces who are fighting side by side a significant pay differential for doing the same thing. Senator Landrieu wants to. We have not done that in the past. I don't think that is a smart thing to do. We have benefits for Regular Army and we have benefits for the Guard and Reserve.

I used to be in the Guard, but to say we want to have a significant pay incentive if a guardsman or reservist is activated over and above the soldiers who are full-time active duty, I question the wisdom of that. That is debatable.

I have no doubt in my mind if we are going to compensate them, and we are talking about compensation for our men and women who are fighting, whether they are Guard and Reserve or whether they are Active, that should be done in the Armed Services Committee. That should be done in the Appropriations Committee, not compensate them through the Tax Code. The Tax Code was not written to be, yes, we will finance their pay. We have a Tax Code that is favorable for people who are in combat situations. It is tax free. They do not pay income tax. That is for Guard and Reserve or Active Duty. If they are in a combat area, they do not have to pay taxes. That is fine. That is the way it should be.

The Senator wants a differential. The Senator wants to pay them more, pay them more. The Senator from Louisiana is on the Appropriations Committee, and we have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Subcommittee. If it is necessary to have a differential to make it work for our Guard and Reserve, have an amendment to pay them more. If it is 10 percent, if it is $10,000 or $20,000, the substance of the amendment is we will give a tax credit to some employers--some get a $15,000 tax credit and some employers get $20,000, some would be 50 percent and some are 100 percent. It is confusing. How are we sure that tax credit gets to the individual, and will it get to the individuals and/or their families immediately? I don't think that connection has been made.

My point is that is not the right way to do it. If you want to compensate them, compensate them through the appropriations process. Pay them more. We passed an authorization to increase pay for men and women.

Substantively, the amendment leaves a lot to be desired. Procedurally, it is worse. Procedurally, this was an amendment in the Senate; it was not in the House. I happened to be a conferee.

I heard my colleague from Louisiana say she called up House conferees and asked: Why didn't you accept this? A couple of comments. The Senator needs to call up conferees before the conference is closed. Not one Member raised this issue in the conference individually. I understand Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley put it in a package of amendments and sent it to the House, and the House rejected that entire package. But we also considered dozens and dozens of amendments individually that people felt strongly about. Some were passed. I had some pass and I had some defeated. That is the legislative process. No one raised this amendment individually. The House did not reject this amendment individually. It was not sent to the House.

No Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Democrat or Republican--we had 23 members of the conference committee. Anyone, Democrat or Republican, could have offered this amendment. My guess is it would have passed the Senate conference. It would not have had my vote, but it would have passed the Senate. Conferees would have sent it to the House, but no one did.

That is the way we work a conference. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. To say, wait a minute, my amendment was not adopted, so therefore I will try and tie the Senate up for 3 or 4 days until you pass my amendment by unanimous consent--there are hundreds of amendments that were not adopted in that conference, hundreds. Every member of the conference had an amendment they wanted to have passed that did not pass. That is part of the legislative process. If we all came up and said, wait a minute, I feel so strongly about that amendment that did not pass I will hold the entire Senate up for a few days to bring that to the attention of the Senate, that is not a very effective way of legislating. There are effective ways to legislate.

If Members really want to increase the compensation of Guard and Reserve, they need to be talking to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. They need to talk to the authorizing committee. They need to talk to the Pentagon. They need to ask, How can we make this work? Not have a system that says, Well, some companies get a tax credit, a bigger tax credit, and maybe it will flow to the employee or maybe flow to the employee a year later--that is not a good way to compensate them. Compensate them directly, as we should, not through refundable tax credits that may or may not get to the family. Try and work it out in a way that would be of benefit, not to say, yesterday they were trying to pass this as a freestanding tax bill but automatically it would be blue-slipped in the House. They will not even consider that. That does not help the cause.

Procedurally, this approach of demanding we pass something by unanimous consent because it was not included in the conference when no one even raised it in the conference is just not the way you legislate. I can think of any number of Senators who were disappointed they did not get what they wanted in conference, and they could try the same thing. I don't think that is effective in legislating. I don't think it will work.

I make those comments. Substantively, the refundable tax credit going to employers is not the correct way to do it. The correct way to do it is, if the individuals who spend a lot of time on how much we should compensate our men and women in the armed services, Regular Army and regular military, as well as Guard and Reserve, if they are convinced we should have a differential for people serving side by side, then we need to be working to implement that through their committees and make it direct compensation so the men and women serving receive that paycheck immediately, not some deferred way that might come through an employer and might be subject to abuse.

I make those comments. The procedure is fatally flawed and substantively the approach is very well intended, but unfortunately I don't think substantively the amendment is the correct way to compensate the men and women who are serving both Active Duty and in the Guard and Reserve. We have to keep in balance what we are paying Active and what we pay Guard and Reserve, and having a big differential could cause a lot of problems.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments and question by my colleague from Virginia.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today with my ranking member, Senator Conrad, would consolidate jurisdiction for the congressional budget process within the Senate Committee on the Budget and establish shared jurisdiction with the new Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs over the nomination and confirmation of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The amendment would preserve the Government Affairs Committee's jurisdiction over management and accounting measures.

Under current Senate rules, jurisdiction over budget process matters is shared with the Committee on Governmental Affairs, a situation that grew out of the creation of the Budget Committee and the modern budget process in 1974.

This shared jurisdiction is unique in the Senate, where committees rarely share jurisdiction, and where joint referral of legislation is only accomplished by unanimous consent.

Since 1977, the Budget and Governmental Affairs Committees have received joint referral for legislation affecting the budget process pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement. Under that UC, if one committee acts on a bill the other committee must act within 30 days or be automatically discharged. Our amendment would supercede this consent agreement.

We all know the Federal budget process is very complicated. The expertise on this subject clearly resides in the Budget Committee, and Senator Conrad and I believe that is where these issues should be addressed.

Over the years, the Governmental Affairs Committee has done little work on the budget process. Although the current jurisdictional situation has not necessarily created significant problems, we believe it is simply unnecessary to have two committees involved in these issues.

The Governmental Affairs Committee has a very broad and expansive jurisdiction which the resolution being considered would expand even further to matters of homeland security.

Senator Conrad and I believe consolidating jurisdiction over budget process issues within the Budget Committee would eliminate confusion and guarantee that this work is performed by those with the expertise.

I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I will not object.

Mr. President, I thank our colleagues for the vote on the last amendment. I especially thank my colleague and friend, Senator Conrad, for his eloquent debate on it, as well as for his support and cosponsorship of the amendment.

I think it is a good amendment. I think it helps the budget process. Also, I compliment my friend. It has been a pleasure to work with him on the Budget Committee. This was a good, positive budget change. I thank him for his leadership on this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4027.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4041 to amendment No. 4027.

Mr. President, I believe I was recognized.

For the information of my colleagues, to help clarify, I believe I understood the underlying Domenici amendment was set aside.

My understanding--I will ask the Chair, but it is my understanding the Domenici-Craig amendment was set aside. Under the unanimous consent agreement that was entered into yesterday, there were several amendments to be pending, that are in order. One of those amendments is an amendment I had, dealing with the budget office. I am just trying to get in, too.

I have modified it at the request of the chairman of the Government Operations Committee. This is not a significant amendment, but it is an important one and I am trying to advance the movement of this bill, to have a pending amendment. I have now modified it. I have a second- degree amendment pending to it, that Senator Kent Conrad and myself are cosponsoring.

It now means that would be the pending amendment to the underlying bill when we go to the regular order on the bill. I would like for us to finish this bill.

I know some people wish to speak at length because they happen to be upset about the Homeland Security bill. I may support them in their efforts. That remains to be seen. But I do think it is important we finish the bill that is pending, and there are four or five amendments that are out there. Maybe two or three of those amendments will be agreed to and we can finish the Homeland Security bill in a very short period of time.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I am going to assume the Senator from Iowa is going to yield me 10 minutes.

I want to compliment my colleague, Senator Grassley from Iowa, and also Senator Baucus from Montana. I want to thank them for their leadership. I also want to thank every Senator who voted for the 2001 tax cut and for the 2003 tax cut.

I especially want to thank and acknowledge the work of my colleague and friend who is retiring from the Senate, Senator Zell Miller, because if he had not been courageous, particularly in 2003 when he cosponsored the bill we are extending today, we would not be here and families would not have had the tax relief.

I also want to compliment President Bush because he pushed for it and he got it. He pushed for it in 2001. We got part of it in 2001 but not much of it. We basically completed it in 2003, and American families got real tax relief. Now we are extending it.

I heard one of my colleagues just say: Well, this is worth $600 for an average American family. Let me just give the facts. For a family who has taxable income of $58,000, this is real relief. If they have $58,000 and most of it is taxable income--most of us consider that middle income--and I have heard a lot of rhetoric: Well, those Bush tax cuts are only for the wealthy, they only benefited the fat cats. Let me just give the facts. I love facts.

If they have taxable income of $58,000, if they have two kids, the bill we are going to pass tonight will save them $600 because the $1,000 tax credit which we passed in 2001, accelerated in 2003, would revert back to $700, a difference of $300 per child. So that is $300 per child they will save. The $1,000 tax credit per child happened because we passed the tax bill in 2001 and in 2003. The marriage penalty relief for the couple who has taxable income of $58,000 will save $911. Why is that? Because we basically take the 15-percent bracket for individuals and we double that amount for couples. That means a couple who makes $58,000 will still be paying 15 percent. Above that amount, their taxable income, they pay 25 percent. If we do not pass this bill today, that amount they pay the higher bracket on is much lower. It is actually anything above $49,000. The delta of that is $9,000, a difference of 10 percent. So that is over $900 in marriage penalty relief for middle-income families.

The 10-percent expansion expires, and we continue that. That is $100. If that is added together for the family of four, middle-income America, making $58,000 of taxable income, this bill will save them $1,611, to be exact. That is a big savings. That is a 26-percent tax increase if we do not pass this bill. We will save them $1,600 by passing this bill.

Basically, by passing this bill we are confirming that the bill we passed last year worked and middle-income Americans do quite well by it. I hope a lot of our colleagues who voted against the bill in 2001 or against the bill in 2003 will vote for the bill tonight because this confirms we are helping middle-income Americans. We are helping them a lot, not a couple of hundred dollars. I have heard some people say what we did for middle income was nothing, it was peanuts. This is not peanuts.

This is $1,600 for a lot of families all across America. So I compliment President Bush, especially because I think that without his leadership, it would not have happened.

I thank those colleagues of ours, Democrats and Republicans, who passed this bill in 2001. And particularly I want to thank Zell Miller because he was helpful in 2003 in passing this bill we are extending tonight. We passed that bill, if my colleagues will remember, with the Vice President breaking the tie. It was a very contentious, very difficult challenge. The President asked me to sponsor the bill and I was happy to do so. We did some other good things in that bill, such as reducing the tax on capital gains to 15 percent, reducing the tax on distributions from corporations to 15 percent because we taxed distributions from corporations higher than any other country in the world. We tied Japan with the highest ranking. We partially eliminated double taxation and made it much more reasonable and responsible, so that was positive.

Incidentally, I might say when we introduced that bill in early 2003, the Dow Jones was 7700. Today the Dow Jones is over 10,000. The NASDAQ is up over 40 percent from when we started pushing this tax bill last year, so the tax bill has worked. There have been 1\1/2\ million new jobs created since we passed that bill. So we have had some positive, good signs.

This is a positive, good bill. Some people have complained and said we didn't do enough. Oh, we shortchanged the military combat personnel.

That is not correct. Some people want to greatly expand earned-income tax credits or expand refundability so the Government will write more checks. The earned-income tax program is a program that is one of the most error-prone programs in the Federal Government. It is over a $30 billion program where we are writing checks--not a tax credit, we are writing checks in almost all cases--and there is a 30-percent error rate. Some people wanted to expand that and make more people

eligible for more money, more refundability. That is, not only are we going to take care and make sure you get a credit so you pay less taxes, but we are going to write you a check for taxes you didn't pay.

I don't agree with that. I oppose that. I don't think we should use the Tax Code for a welfare program. We have now a situation with the EIC where a person can get the Federal Government writing them a check for 40 percent of the money they are earning. To expand upon that and build that even more I think is irresponsible, when you have an error rate in the program of 30 percent. So that is the reason why there are some objections. I just mention that. The complicated--anyway, I don't need to go too much further.

I am pleased we are here tonight. I am pleased we are passing this package. I think this confirms that what we did in 2001 and 2003 has worked. We have helped American families.

One final comment. I have heard many comments that I wish we would pay for this program. I have heard several people say that. We are continuing the tax relief we gave last year. If we don't do that, there is going to be a tax increase. How many times do you hear the same colleagues say, when we want to continue to spend, Oh, wait a minute, we want to pay for that? Pay for the same amount of spending? For new spending? Never. As a matter of fact, we stopped $1.7 trillion in new spending. Most of the people saying we have to pay for these tax cuts never want to pay for that new spending. They voted against amendments to stop that new spending, or they voted against budget points of order that did stop new spending.

I find it kind of interesting they only want to pay for anything that is called tax cuts, but they never want to pay for spending increases. It is a little ironic, a little interesting. I happen to have the facts and the votes and I am happy to share that. I have votes on every Member, every vote people have cast on spending provisions over the last several years.

The budget actually has worked. The budget we passed enabled us to have the tax cuts that enabled American families to keep more of their own money.

I might say we do have good news on the budget. The deficit figures are coming down by over $100 billion, just by the last estimate. So we have made good progress. The economy is starting to work. I heard some people say incomes are down. Frankly, incomes are up. Jobs are up.

Receipts are up. CBO has been underestimating revenues.

Before, they were making mistakes where they were overestimating for a couple of years. Now they have been underestimating because the economy is growing faster. Corporate receipts are exceeding expectations. So the changes we made by reducing capital gains and dividend taxes are helping the economy grow.

These family-friendly tax cuts are helping American families. We are giving tax relief to taxpayers and that is what we should be doing in this bill. We are also giving continued assistance for people who do not pay taxes. We still have a very extensive refundability portion in this bill as well.

I urge our colleagues to vote for this bill. It is good news for taxpayers. It means for the American family which has taxable income of $58,000, they are going to save $1,600 on their tax bill for next year. That is positive, good news for American families and American taxpayers.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield 1 minute?

Mr. President, I have heard some statements where people are insinuating that American combat personnel are getting gypped by this bill. That is false. We are giving them a benefit they didn't have before. We are saying they can use combat pay in computing their earned-income tax credit, or not. If it is to their advantage to use it, they can. If it is to their advantage not to use it, they can pass. This is a new provision. This is something they didn't have in the past. They have it now for 2 years.

The Treasury advised against this because it is very complicated, very confusing, hard to monitor. I have already

complained on the floor tonight about how complicated the EIT program is. It already has a 30-percent error rate, and that is without this confusion. This was done previously. The Clinton administration said not to do it. We repealed it at their request. We are putting it back for 2 years. We are trying to see if we can make it work and be factually accurate in computing taxes. This is a new benefit for combat pay which, incidentally, is not taxed. It is a good deal for American soldiers. It is not a bad deal.

I resent the statement implying that they are coming up short. This is a good new benefit for them, and we will see if it works.

I thank my colleague from Iowa.

Madam President, the pending Foreign Operations appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2005, S. 2674, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides $19.386 billion in discretionary budget authority and $26.728 billion discretionary outlays in Fiscal Year 2005. The bill also includes an additional $43 million in mandatory spending.

The discretionary totals are $1.933 billion in budget authority and $250 million in outlays below the President's request.

The discretionary budget authority provided in the bill matches the 302(b) allocation adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee as well as the amount provided in the House-passed bill. The discretionary outlays provided in the bill are $57 million less than the 302(b) allocation and $29 million above the House-passed bill.

Section 595 of the bill includes $360 million in 2005 budget authority for Iraqi debt relief and Section 599D of the bill includes $150 million for humanitarian needs in Darfur, Sudan. These amounts are designated emergencies and are paired with a rescission of like amounts of budget authority from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, which has an emergency designation. Section 599E of the bill includes an additional $150 million in emergency budget authority for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. There is no transfer or rescission associated with this provision. All three sections are subject to a Budget Act point of order. While I will not raise a point of order on these provisions I do ask the conferees to hold the line on spending in the bill so that it does not exceed 302(b) allocation and to include appropriate offsets for any provisions with emergency designations.

I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, S. 2666, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $560 million in budget authority and $540 million outlays in fiscal year 2005. There is no mandatory funding in this bill.

The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2005, of $560 million. This amount is equal to the President's request, it matches the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and is $18 million more than fiscal year 2004 enacted levels excluding fiscal year 2004 supplemental appropriations.

I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the pending Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, S. 2666, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $3.688 billion in budget authority and $3.808 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005. Of these totals, $113 million is for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2005.

The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2005 of $3.575 billion. This amount is $403 million below the President's request, it matches the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and is $50 million more than fiscal year 2004-enacted levels excluding fiscal year 2004 supplemental appropriations.

I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.