Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, this is in keeping with our agreement. I wanted the record to reflect--in case Senator Leahy is watching us because he wanted to make sure he would have 45 minutes on his amendments and 15 minutes on the bill--it is my understanding Senator Specter will be giving him 15 minutes of his time, but if he doesn't, I will take it from the bill. So Senator Leahy will have his 45 minutes, 15 minutes on this bill.

So I think this is an opportunity to improve this bill. We would all like to have had more time for hearings and debate on the floor, but we are where we are. I am thankful and grateful that we have an opportunity to improve this bill.

If the Senator from Pennsylvania will yield just for a question?

I have had conversations--I have not spoken with the Senator from Pennsylvania, but I have spoken with his staff on a number of occasions. I had the understanding that the Senator would be able to give Senator Leahy a few minutes off of his time to speak on this amendment?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. William C. Torch of Reno, NV, who has been selected as a recipient of the prestigious Tibbetts Award. Significantly, Dr. Torch is the first individual from Nevada to receive this honor.

Each year the U.S. Small Business Administration celebrates the accomplishments of a handful of firms, organizations, and individuals nationwide with the Tibbetts Award, the agency's highest recognition for innovative technology. Named for Roland Tibbetts, the father of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, the award honors those who best exemplify the philosophy and doctrine of the SBIR Program. Recipients are selected based on overall business achievements, the economic impact of technological innovations, and demonstration of successful collaboration, among other factors. An individual may only win once in his or her lifetime.

Considering the purpose of the Tibbetts Award, I find it very appropriate Dr. Torch is a recipient. A neurologist specializing in sleep disorders, Dr. Torch has long been an innovative leader in modern, medical research, and social improvement. I have been very impressed by Dr. Torch's unique contributions to the field of medicine and the State of Nevada.

Dr. Torch is perhaps best known as the inventor of EYE-COM, a biosensor that monitors the frequency and speed of the human eye blink. Small enough to hide inside of a pair of glasses, EYE-COM uses an alarm to alert wearers if they begin blinking slower than normal. Already this technology has had profound social effects; it holds great potential for even more social and medical utility in the future.

For example, EYE-COM has improved the therapy and lives of many patients by allowing them to better interact with the world around them. In a 2002 interview, Dr. Torch said he hoped truckers and pilots would use EYE-COM to warn them if they were getting too tired, thereby increasing the safety of our Nation's airspace and highways. Law enforcement officers might also use the device to determine if individuals were driving while impaired. As I speak, researchers across the country are working to cultivate the inherent potential of EYE-COM.

Beyond being a noteworthy inventor, Dr. Torch has significant business achievements to his credit. He is the founder and director of the EYEcom Corporation, the Neurodevelopmental and Neurodiagnostic Center, and Washoe Sleep Disorders Center in Reno, NV, which is accredited by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. He is also the founder of Sleep-Management, a Nevada corporation, specializing in jet lag and shift work fatigue research. From 1998 to 2003, he was the director of neurology at Northern Nevada Medical Center.

Dr. Torch, who has been licensed in Nevada since 1979, received his medical degree with distinction in research and a master's degree in neurochemistry from the University of Rochester. He received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from the Brooklyn College. He completed a residency in pediatrics and a residency and fellowship in child and adult neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in Bronx,

Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 13th annual National Public Lands Day, which will be celebrated on Saturday, September 30. Covering nearly one third of America's total land area, public lands are part of the essence of our country. Today, I am pleased to acknowledge the efforts of volunteers around the Nation who will come together to improve and restore one of America's most valuable assets.

Since it's inception in 1994, National Public Lands Day has helped foster communities of volunteers around the Nation. When it started thirteen years ago, there were 700 volunteers working in only a few areas. I am pleased to report that this year nearly 90,000 volunteers will work at over 800 locations to maintain and enhance countless acres of public land for the enjoyment of future generations.

Growing up in Searchlight--whether I was hunting or just hiking in the desert--I developed a great appreciation for public lands. Preserving these lands for both practical and aesthetic purposes is one of my top priorities.

Given that more than 87 percent of the land in Nevada is managed by Federal agencies, I know that I am not alone in recognizing the importance of public land. Nevadans understand that public lands serve many vital purposes in our State; from hiking and hunting to mining and ranching.

I would be remiss if I didn't also take time to recognize and thank the thousands of Federal employees who manage these lands year-round. The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal land agencies help ensure that the complex patchwork of Federal land management in Nevada serves and adapts to the changing needs of our communities and the public at large. They provide a vital, although rarely reported, service to our Nation.

Through the month of October, volunteers and staff from land management agencies from across Nevada will gather at sites such as the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails Conservation Area, the Desert Tortoise Conservation Management Area, the Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Lamoille Canyon, and the Nevada Northern Railway, among others. They will remove litter, construct walking paths, restore fences, post signs, and perform tasks that will improve our public lands for everyone who is fortunate enough to visit them.

Our public lands are part of what makes America a great nation. I voice

my gratitude to everyone who will participate in National Public Lands Day this year.

Mr. President, if I could just briefly respond, we would like to proceed as expeditiously as possible. We have been alerted by one of my Senators that the rule XIV legislation that was brought to the Senate late last week is different from the amendment that was filed tonight. So some of my folks are trying to figure out what has happened. We thought what was going to be filed as an amendment to this fence bill was the same piece of legislation that was rule XIVed. So we have now a rule XIV that has been sent up, and now we have this amendment. So that has created a little bit of confusion on our side.

But I also say this: I think we could work something out if we can get to the bill. When we start late in the session like this, any one Senator weighs about 1,000 pounds because any Senator can stop anything they want. So we have to make sure we can get to this. It takes all 100 Senators to agree that is the case. If we could proceed to it, it is my understanding the majority leader would allow a limited number of amendments. We could work on this tomorrow with some time agreements on it--agreements on both sides.

If this is not worked out, it is my understanding that what would happen is that on Wednesday there would be a cloture vote on this amendment dealing with Hamdan. That would occur on Wednesday, and then after that, amendments germane in nature would be in order if, in fact, the majority decided to allow any amendments to go forward.

So it appears to me the best chance for Senators on both sides to have an opportunity to offer amendments to Hamdan would be to move to it tomorrow. If we cannot do that, then we will have to see what happens with cloture. But I believe that is where we find ourselves tonight.

Mr. President, I would further say just briefly that, yes, we do have this matter before us. Is it what we want? The answer is, probably we think we could do better. That is why we would agree on this side to have a limited number of amendments and have this body decide whether the bill can be improved. We hope that can occur. As I have indicated in my previous statement, it all depends on how the other 98 Senators feel as to whether we can move forward short of cloture on Wednesday.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I received a rare personal telephone call today from Secretary Condoleezza Rice, which I appreciated. It was on this subject matter. I told her how I felt. I told her it is unfortunate that this legislation has been put aside since last July until today. I also told her that I personally support the legislation. I cosponsored it. I think it is important legislation.

I told her exactly what I told the majority leader and the Indian Foreign Minister last week; that is, I support this legislation and believe it is very important for the full Senate to act on it very quickly.

This legislation, I believe, is strongly supported by a sizable majority of the Senate. I canvased our side for amendments. We have a number of amendments that have been talked about. I think that is the universe of the amendments, with rare exception. I think these are manageable amendments. They are few in number. And I think we could complete this legislation very quickly. I have directed our floor staff to prepare a unanimous consent request to that effect.

We have a situation where the managers' amendment Senator Lugar and Senator Biden have come up with--they have not been able to work this out, the two managers. These are two of the most senior Members of the Senate. I hope they can do that in the near future.

So I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader's request be modified as follows: that once the agreement has been reached on the managers' amendment, the Senate begin consideration of S. 3709 under the following limitations: that the managers' amendment be immediately agreed to for purposes of original text, that first-degree amendments deal with similar subject matter as contained in the bill, and that relevant second-degree amendments be in order.

Before the Chair puts the question, I would point out it would be my expectation we could finish this bill very quickly. I think we could finish it in 1 day. It might be a long day, but we could do that. I think we could do that. I think this is important enough that we should have a long day, if necessary, to do this and that agreements would be possible on each of our amendments. On every amendment we would offer, we would agree to a relatively short time limit.

I object.

Mr. President, if the majority leader would, when he completes the motion to close for the night--if he would allow the Senator from Illinois to speak for 15 minutes, prior to our going out?

As in morning business.

Mr. President, has the majority leader made a decision as to when we are going to vote Monday?

The other question is, I recognize that other than delaying things, if the majority wants to go home, that is what we do because we have fewer votes than they have. But my Senators are asking, and staff is asking, is this Friday and Saturday the date that the majority is going to go home?

The reason I say that, if there is some anticipation that if things don't work out, we are going to go beyond next week, our folks should know that.

The majority leader and I have had private conversations. It is my further understanding that the majority leader is planning on coming back the following Monday after the elections?

Monday or Tuesday?

Mr. President, last week, hundreds of family, friends, and admirers gathered in Houston, TX, to honor the life of a WWII veteran, legal giant, and true American hero, U.S. district judge James DeAnda. Judge DeAnda died last Thursday, September 7, 2006, at the age of 81. Throughout his life, he quietly went about his work of ensuring that Hispanic Americans were guaranteed the same protections and rights afforded them in our Constitution.

Today, we mourn his passing and pay tribute to his important contributions to this Nation. I am joined by Senator Salazar, who is familiar with the importance of Judge DeAnda's legacy. Senator Salazar, what do you believe are Judge DeAnda's most important legal victories?

Yes, I agree with the Senator from Colorado. Judge DeAnda no doubt played a key role in our Nation's history. He was a key leader in the Latino civil rights movement who worked tirelessly to foster legal equality for Latinos and all Americans. Like many great Americans, Judge DeAnda rose from humble beginnings.

The son of Mexican immigrants, Judge DeAnda was born in Houston, TX. He interrupted his college education at Texas A&M University to join the Marines during World War II, serving in the Pacific and then later China. When he returned from the war, he completed his studies and then enrolled in the University of Texas Law School in 1950, where he was among the first Hispanics admitted.

Beyond the Hernandez case, Judge DeAnda took on countless other cases in his fight to end segregation of Hispanics in Texas. In 1968, he went before the Supreme Court in the case of Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD, a case that led to the desegregation and increased funding of schools in that city. It was also during that year that Judge DeAnda helped to establish one of the most respected national Hispanic organizations, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, MALDEF. Senator Salazar, would you say that the founding of MALDEF has empowered the Hispanic community in our country?

We are truly indebted to Judge DeAnda. Indeed, it is only fitting that as our Nation begins a month-long celebration of Hispanic contributions to America during Hispanic Heritage Month, we take this time to acknowledge Judge DeAnda. We are deeply saddened by his passing but are also inspired by his example as we carry on the struggle to ensure equity for all Americans. His life-long dedication to the protection of Americans has made him an icon in the legal profession and a pioneer of the American civil rights movement.

Judge DeAnda will be missed by all, but certainly by his wife Joyce and their four children. They are in our thoughts and prayers.

I so appreciate the courtesy that is so normal and usual from my friend from Alabama.

Mr. President, it is so interesting that here it is 5 days before we are set to adjourn, 6 weeks before an election, and this border fence bill has been brought forward. The majority and the President have had 5 years since 9/11 to secure our borders, but they basically ignored, for 5 years, this issue of national security. Now, with the elections looming, suddenly they want to get serious about protecting America. If they want to have this debate, I am happy to join in it.

First of all, we can build the tallest fence in the world, and it will not fix our broken immigration system. To do that we need the kind of comprehensive reform that the Senate passed earlier this year. We have been waiting for months for the majority to appoint conferees so we can move forward on this bill, but they have not done that.

Mr. President, I direct your attention and that of my distinguished friend from Alabama to this document called ``Immigration and America's Future.'' I just completed a meeting with Senator Spencer Abraham and Congressman Lee Hamilton, who are cochairs of this Task Force on Immigration and America's Future. Twenty-five of the most prominent people in America have met to recognize that our system is in bad shape. This document will be made public in a matter of hours. It will be made public today. I so much appreciate their coming and talking about what they believe is good and bad about our system. I think it is without any exaggeration that they think the House suggestion that we can do it through just security will not work.

Our bill, our Senate bill--I am sure they are not going to endorse it but, of course, they think it is better than the House bill by a far measure.

Because it appears very clear to me that the President and the majority leader are not going to help us get this conference appointed--we have waited weeks and weeks for a conference--I hope that we can, when we come back next year, do something about immigration, something serious and substantial.

I have not read this document. I have the greatest respect for the people who have come up with this document, and I think we can find a lot of substance in it. We need a bill that combines strong and effective enforcement of our borders, tough sanctions against employers who hire undocumented immigrants, a temporary worker program, and an opportunity for undocumented immigrants currently in this country to have a pathway to legal immigration. They need to work hard, pay their taxes, learn English, and stay out of trouble. Only a combination of these elements will work to get our broken immigration under control.

President Bush says he supports comprehensive reform, but he has a strange way of showing it. I heard my friend, who is one of the Senate's lawyers. Rarely does he come to the Senate floor unless he has an element of the law on which to speak. One of the things he talked about, last year they apprehended a little over a million people coming across the borders. However, that is down 30 percent from the time President Bush took office until now. Prior to that, we were picking up close to 2 million. We have a system that just does not work.

It is not just people coming across our border; it is what they are bringing across the border. The General Accounting Office reported that they were able to bring nuclear materials across our border. Now, 6 months after we received that report from the General Accounting Office, the Republicans want to get serious about border security. What has taken so long?

For years, we have had procedures and laws in place to secure our borders--not well but certainly better--and they have been virtually ignored. The September 11 Commission told the President he should work with other countries to develop a terrorist watch list that our Border Patrol agents could use to check people coming in. Did he do that? No. The September 11 Commission gave him a failing grade.

In the 9/11 Act--we all remember that--Congress provided for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. Guess what. Like so many things, they are authorized but not paid for. We have been unable to get the President and the Republican Congress to pay for these new Border Patrol agents. We authorized them and do not pay for them.

We did not oppose the sensible fence on the border. Almost all of us voted for a 370-mile fence as part of the comprehensive bill. If I am not mistaken, it is the Senator from Alabama who moved forward to have the fence paid for. That is good. Now we have an amendment to build 700 miles of extremely expensive fencing--some estimate it will cost as much as $7 billion--with no plan to fix our broken immigration system.

The majority has made very clear they have no interest in negotiating with the Senate to enact legislation. What we are doing today is about November 7th. In addition, we now hear the majority may try to include the entire House enforcement package in the Homeland Security appropriations conference report. This is the package that the House Republicans put together after their unprecedented summer of sham hearings about the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Among the measures included in the package is a provision making the 12 million undocumented immigrants subject to arrest and detention. This provision has long been opposed by State and local law enforcement authorities who already are stretched thin and do not want to jeopardize the policing efforts in immigrant communities.

This is clearly an effort to sneak the controversial criminalization provisions of the House enforcement-only bill through the back door. I strongly oppose this illegitimate maneuver. If the Republicans want to move forward on these provisions, they should have agreed to a conference on immigration bills that each Chamber passed.

Enforcement measures alone will not secure our border. It is crucial we get control of our border. That is without any question. But, like many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and like President Bush, I believe we can only secure our border through comprehensive reform. No amount of grandstanding will change that.

This is a rehash of a battle we already have fought. The Senate has spoken and profoundly disagrees with the House. The Senate is ready to sit down with the House and work out a real solution. We need the President and the majority leader to help find the solution. We have offered practical, workable, fair solutions to solve our immigration systems. The President and the majority leader said they supported what we were trying to do, but it does not appear they are interested in real solutions, just political posturing at this stage.

On the motion to proceed to this bill, I will vote aye in the hope that the majority leader will allow Members to amend it to reflect the Senate's bipartisan support for comprehensive immigration reform. At the very least, there are certain key things we need to do. The fruits and vegetables in our country are being thrown away at harvest time because we do not have the people to pick the fruit and vegetables and work at the processing plants. I hope that amendment would be allowed-- at least the farm workers provision.

I wish we were in a different position. I, again, direct my colleagues' attention to this work done by Senator Abraham, Congressman Hamilton and 23 others. It is a bipartisan group. As I have indicated, I have not read this--I have gotten a briefing on it--but we need to have a new direction in immigration in this country. Hopefully, this document will allow that new direction.

Again, I so appreciate my friend allowing me to speak. I appreciate it so very much.

Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I want to have the Record spread with my appreciation for who he is and how he has operated as a Member of Congress, first in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate. Our ranking member on the Finance Committee has been the chair of our Finance Committee, the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The people of Montana are very fortunate to have him in their corner.

I appreciate his coming here, as the people of Montana and the people of Nevada want, with just commonsense legislation. This is going to pass. I cannot imagine that this legislative body would walk away from here and not pass this must-do legislation.

But I say I am of the opinion now that maybe this Republican Congress, which has been dubbed--not by me but by writers all over the country--as the most do-nothing Congress in the history of our Republic, I guess they want to make sure they don't lose that record as the most do-nothing Congress in history.

This is evidence of it. We sit here doing nothing all day today, doing nothing all day tomorrow, when there are important things to be accomplished.

Some of my colleagues were here earlier talking about the delicate balance we have in our economy. Housing all over the country is headed the wrong way. I have learned that highway construction and homebuilding are the two economic engines that drive our economy.

I am so disappointed, and I say that very seriously, that these important provisions have not been extended today. If we had an opportunity to vote on these it would be virtually unanimous, Democrats and Republicans, but we are not provided the ability to vote on this. I don't know why. Maybe they are trying to come up with some kind of an arrangement so that we will be forced to vote for it because, although it will have other things in it that we will not like, we will like this so much. That was tried once and it didn't work. The American people are too smart, and we speak for the American people.

Some things are so important. I have a niece. Her name is Lari, named after my father and brother. She struggled to get through school. She worked. She finally got to become a schoolteacher. She now teaches high school at Las Vegas High School, but she doesn't have much money.

She spends money out of her own pocket to buy school supplies. The school district should buy them but they don't. Under the provisions we are trying to extend, schoolteachers all over America can deduct up to $250 a year for school supplies they buy out of their own pocket.

Mr. President, $250 to my niece means a lot. It may not mean a lot to millionaires and all the people who benefited so much during this Republican administration, but to my niece it means a lot. She will not get that unless we put on these extenders.

I am happy to yield.

I say to my friend, I received a call before the last recess from the chair of the Business Roundtable. This is a group composed of Democrats and Republicans but, frankly, more Republicans than Democrats, and they represent the American business community. The chairman of that group said something to me. I asked him, Of all these provisions, which is the most important? And he said, We only care about one: the research and development tax credit has to pass. It is so important to the American business community. If we don't have that, it is going to have a tremendously detrimental effect on business.

We have not done it.

So I say to my friend, there are so many problems and he has outlined them very clearly. I listened to my friend--I just saw him walk through here--the chairman of the committee.

He made a wonderful statement. He said, Why should the Federal Government have to pay extra money for what we aren't doing?

They are waiting, as you indicated. They need to prepare these forms. It costs money to do this. In my State--it is different than your State--we pay a very large sales tax. In your State you don't have a sales tax, you have an income tax.

You get a deduction. There are 12 million families in States without a State income tax, and they are not going to have the benefit of that--12 million families.

I talked to my friend--I don't think he would be embarrassed if I mentioned his name--Steve Wynn, who is one of America's great businessmen. He has done so much for Las Vegas. He is a modern business giant. He comes up with new ideas. His hotels are magnificent.

He called me up about a situation today. I am trying to work it through the last few days of this session. We have a Republican in the House and a Republican in the Senate who are fighting over a bill. He didn't know who. He thought one of them was a Democrat. I said, No, these are two Republicans fighting over this. He said, That's the way it always is, Harry.

I said, Steve, I'm sorry to say you are right. What do you think the American people think of this?

We mentioned just a few things. I again mentioned my little niece, the schoolteacher and the $250. To us, we get a big fat salary, we Members of Congress, and all the tax cuts the administration passed on. They don't

care about my niece; $250, what does it mean to them? To her it means a lot. What do the American people think we are doing here? These provisions have to be passed.

I so appreciate your leadership. I have never come to this floor, ever, and criticized the chairman of the Finance Committee. I can't say that about other chairmen, but I have never criticized the farmer from Iowa, because he has a heart of gold. He can be very tough and hard. But he has been saying everything he can publicly that has supported our position. I hope the majority will allow this most important piece of legislation to come before it.

I am sorry to talk about my niece so much. Her name is Lari Dawn. She is named after my dad and my brother, Larry. We love Lari Dawn. But she is one of 3.3 million teachers who are forced to reach into their own pockets to provide supplies for their students. They are going to lose that. Again, that doesn't sound like much, but for the American people they get their money's worth for every Lari Dawn of the world who is out there trying to educate their children. For the 3.3 million teachers and the head of the Business Roundtable, all aspects of our society benefit from this legislation.

Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Montana.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was in my office and listened to the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho talk about the bill that is before the Senate, the so-called fence bill. I have great respect for the distinguished senior Senator. We have served together in the House and the Senate. He talked with great emotion about the agricultural workers and how people are losing crops as a result of not having sufficient agricultural workers and that it was extremely important that we have agricultural worker legislation.

I heard my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, talk about agricultural workers and how important they are. She gave vivid illustrations of how they are important. I agree with both, but I am stunned that the Senator from Idaho appears to only be talking and not being meaningful in what he is saying about agricultural workers.

``Congress Daily PM,'' which is a publication put out on a daily basis by the National Journal, says as follows:

Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, would like to

offer his amendment which would streamline certification for

migrant farm workers, language that was included in the

Senate's immigration package.

Listen to this one, though, this final sentence:

Craig spokesman said the Senator would not offer his

amendment if it would hold up consideration of the House-

passed bill.

We have a bill before the Senate. No one has any intent of holding up the bill, but there are some important amendments that people want to offer. According to the Senator from Idaho, he feels his agricultural workers provision is pretty important. Then why shouldn't we be able to offer some amendments on this? Why shouldn't we be able to offer one amendment, an agricultural workers amendment? Why shouldn't we be able to offer two amendments, three amendments with time on them?

I am told the majority leader is going to fill the tree--that is a buzzword around here for having the majority lock up this legislation so no amendments are possible.

My friend from Idaho cannot have it both ways. He cannot be righteously indignant about the fact we are not having an opportunity to help agricultural workers and then, in effect, throw in the towel and say he is going to do nothing about it.

He is part of the majority party; we are not. We cannot do much about it, but he can.

Mr. President, I want the record to reflect that I appreciate very much Senator Stabenow, Senator Reed, and Senator Sarbanes coming here today and talking about something we haven't talked about much in recent weeks. The Republicans wanted to make this September ``security month.'' So we have devoted all of our time talking about the failure of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. We know that the war in Iraq has been a diversion to the real war on terror, but that is what they want to talk about.

I am so grateful that my friends came and talked about the economy. It

is an issue that deserves to be a top priority of this Congress but has been ignored for years--the need to strengthen America's middle class. Our country has always been a land of opportunity. As a nation, we take pride that all Americans, no matter where they begin in life, have the opportunity to work hard, get ahead, and prosper. It is called the American dream, and it is what our country is all about.

Unfortunately, while it is still possible for Americans to do well, it is getting harder and harder all the time. America's middle class faces ever increasing obstacles. Incomes are going down, but costs are going up. More and more middle-class families are being squeezed, and this Congress has done nothing to stop that.

Let's look at the facts. There really is a middle-class squeeze under this Republican administration. Real household income has declined during the tenure of President Bush. It has declined by $1,273 a year. That is pretty significant. This is median inflation adjusted household income. It was $47,599 in 2000. Here is what it is 5 years later, $46,326. That is not a record anyone should boast about.

The rich have been able to do much better. The average tax break for somebody over $1 million is about $38,000, where for someone under $50,000, the tax break has been about $6.

In addition to the household income declining, basic costs of the middle class have gone up. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed.

The cost of going to college in these 5 years has gone up 44 percent. Health insurance premiums, when one can find health insurance, has gone up 71 percent. We are up to over 47 million Americans now with no health insurance and millions of others who are underinsured. Energy costs certainly have gone up. Parents are paying $3,700 more than they were 5 years ago. Health insurance, if one can buy it, is up $4,500 in the last 6 years. You are paying more.

This story only tells half the story. As families struggle to afford what they need, they also find themselves less secure. Since President Bush took office, 3.7 million more Americans are without employer- sponsored retirement plans. Almost 7 million more Americans are without health insurance, and millions more are carrying significant debt.

Since 2000, household debt has increased by 35 percent, or more than $26,000. When we put all this together--declining incomes, skyrocketing prices, rising insecurity--it is no wonder the economy remains a top concern for the American people. The kitchen-table concerns are issues that matter most to families, yet they are also the issues that are routinely ignored or made worse by this Congress that has been given the name ``do-nothing Congress,'' and rightfully so.

Just listen to Washington Republicans to see how out of touch they are. They are convinced the economy is doing great. They believe we should stay the course. We not only want to stay the course in the war in Iraq, according to the President, we want to stay the course with the economy, even as families struggle like never before.

We can do better than the Republican record of failure--much better. We can take a new direction, and it starts by putting the middle class first for a change.

Democrats have developed a variety of proposals addressing the middle-class squeeze, but every time the Republican majority has blocked our efforts so they can help special interests.

As to rising gas prices, we proposed a ban on price gouging. The prices have dropped down. They are going to go back up. There is nothing that has changed substantially. All we need is a problem in Nigeria or another storm. The majority blocked our price-gouging legislation. They blocked it on behalf of the oil and gas industry. But, of course, they should, Mr. President, because this is the most energy-friendly administration we have had in the history of our country.

To lower the cost of prescription drugs, Democrats proposed repealing the Republican ban on negotiating for lower prices in Medicare, but the majority blocked that on behalf of the pharmaceutical lobby.

To bolster middle-class incomes, Democrats proposed ending tax breaks that encouraged companies to outsource jobs overseas, but the majority continues to support these tax breaks at the behest of multilevel, multinational corporations.

To cut college costs and help more Americans get ahead, we proposed making college tuition deductible from taxes. That is gone. The majority pushed through the largest student aid cut in the history of our country and allowed the college tuition deduction to expire even while pushing for huge tax breaks for special interests and multimillionaires.

The bottom line is that all too often in Republican Washington, special interests rule while the middle class is left behind. As I said, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class are getting squeezed, and it has never been so apparent as during these last 6 years. America literally cannot afford to stay the present course.

While Washington Republicans have been ignoring the plight of the middle class, they have been digging our Nation into a budget hole that will take decades to correct. As Senator Conrad has explained so powerfully, since 2001, our national debt has exploded from $5.8 trillion to $8.5 trillion. The debt will double to $11.6 trillion by 2010.

The debt owed to foreigners has already doubled. The United States has borrowed more from overseas interests--that is foreign countries-- during the Bush Presidency than we borrowed during all previous Presidencies combined. I think that is irresponsible, and our children and our grandchildren will pay the price.

We have several Democratic Senators who are experts on the economy who have come and spoken. Senator Sarbanes, who sadly will retire at the end of this year, has been a wonderful Senator. He has handled the Banking Committee with expertise, and I so appreciate his coming to the floor today and talking about this issue. Our Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, Jack Reed, has done a wonderful job.

But I want to return to my main point. We need a new direction in America, one that strengthens the middle class. We believe it is long past time Washington focused on the people who work hard every day, play by the rules, and are the backbone of our Nation. They are being ignored, and they need our help. Our goal is not for Government to spend more; it is for families to spend less--less for college, less for health care, less for fuel, less for energy--all while enjoying an opportunity to succeed and prosper in the global economy and a chance at the American dream.

Mr. President, for 10 years, to show how little this Republican- dominated town feels about the poor, we have been unable to increase the minimum wage. When President Clinton was President, we tried and a filibuster by Republicans stopped us. The minimum wage--we believe Congress and Washington should focus on ways to help make the American dream come true, to help all Americans achieve their dreams. But to do that, we need to change course by, at long last, standing up to special interests and standing up for the common good. That is the Democratic vision. That is the new direction we seek. America's middle class in our Nation deserves no less.

Mr. President, for more than 3 years, this Congress, which has been given the name of the ``do-nothing Congress,'' has turned a blind eye to the intractable war in Iraq, ignoring the administration's many mistakes and allowing it to stay on a failed course.

Here we are, with 6 days left in the 109th Congress, and the Republicans, who control the House and Senate and the White House, have not held one hearing--not one--into the President's wartime failures. During the Civil War, President Lincoln was faced continually with oversight hearings by his Congress. Of course, we know during World War II, there were a number of commissions. The most famous was that conducted by Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, which led to his becoming Vice President. Some say, but for that he would not have been chosen as Vice President. What was the Truman Commission? It was to determine what was going on with World War II. Was money being wasted? Were troop levels right? Korean war hearings were also held, and the same for the Vietnam war. But for this war, none--even though this war has taken longer than it took to settle the differences in the European theater in World War II. Soon it will be the same amount of time that we were able to beat Japan.

This Republican Congress has wasted 20 months on horse slaughtering; the Schiavo case, dealing with someone's personal relationship, which should not even have been before this body; gay marriage; the nuclear option; flag burning; repealing the estate tax. But they could not find a day for some time to look at the President's mistakes, missteps, and misconduct, which have hurt American security and plunged Iraq into a civil war--not a day.

Yesterday's Washington Post newspaper brought the latest indictment of the Bush incompetence in Iraq, in a front-page story entitled ``Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq.'' Mr. President, this article says a lot of things, but here is some of it:

. . . applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle

East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most

important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

It is interesting to note that the person selected to do this is a man by the name of O'Beirne. I saw that name and it flashed because I have been on programs with a woman by the name of Kate O'Beirne. And I'll be darned, it happened to be her husband who was chosen to find the people to take care of postwar Iraq.

Here are some of the questions that were asked of the applicants: ``Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000?'' They even asked questions about how the applicant felt about Roe v. Wade. People being interviewed for purposes of helping rebuild war-damaged Iraq were asked questions on Roe v. Wade. The questions had nothing to do with one's competence, their educational background, or their experience. The article says that

. . . from April 2003 to June 2004 [it was clear that

O'Beirne] lacked vital skills and experience

to do what he was required to do. It says:

A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance--but had

applied for a White House job--was sent to reopen Baghdad's

stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative

commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical

university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage

Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a

background in accounting.

The article also says:

Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the

past two years depict an organization that was dominated--and

ultimately hobbled--by administration ideologues.

``We didn't tap--and it should have started from the White

House on down--just didn't tap the right people to do this

job,'' said Frederick Smith, who served as deputy director of

the DPA's Washington office. ``It was a tough, tough job.

Instead we got people who went out there because of their

political leanings.''

But many CPA staff members were more interested in other

things: in instituting a flat tax--

People were sent there with no background, no education, no academic experience, and set out to create a flat tax in Iraq.

They were interested ``in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.''

Mr. President, this picture says it all. Here is Paul Bremmer. They dumped General Garner after a few weeks and brought Bremmer in. Here he is, on his throne--on his throne. He is on a throne surrounded by Iraqis.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

The answer is, yes, he received that. I assume one would expect that from somebody who had a throne while he was over there.

That is true.

I don't think he did. Even though he was doing a heck of a job, I don't think he obtained a medal from the White House.

The article goes on to say--and I say to my friend and anyone within the sound of my voice:

To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought resumes

from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative

think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from

those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the

applicants possessed Arab language skills or postwar

rebuilding experience.

Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's resume

and pronounced him ``an ideal candidate.'' His chief

qualification was that had he worked for the Republican Party

in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.

I am not making this up. This is hard to comprehend.

I will be happy to.

It started out at $18 billion. But as the Senator from Illinois will remember, part of that money, stacks of one-hundred- dollar bills, was used by some of the contractors who were sent over there to play football games--some of these same people.

I say to my friend, this war is approaching 3\1/2\ years, and there has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the conduct of the war. This war has now cost us, the American taxpayers, about $325 billion. There has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the war.

I say to my friend, I spent the weekend reading a book. I did other things. I spent a lot of time on an airplane. The book is called ``Fiasco,'' written by a man named Thomas Ricks who has spent his life covering the military. He has written books on the military. I don't know his political persuasion. This book is on the best seller's list of the New York Times.

In this book, he talks in such detail about what has happened as a result of the incompetence of this administration to our valiant fighting men and women over there. I recommend the book to anyone. It is a searing indictment of this administration. It is in keeping with what this article is all about.

Another paragraph:

One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's

wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment

process: ``I watched resumes of immensely talented

individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown

in the trash because their adherence to `the President's

vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was

`uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like

Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions

in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC

(Republican National Committee) contributors.''

One staffer said:

I'm not here for the Iraqis, I'm here for George Bush.''

Mr. President, this is really a sad commentary. Important jobs, such as rebuilding the Iraq stock exchange, were given to applicants who agreed with the President on Roe v. Wade. Qualified individuals were turned down for jobs if they didn't vote for Bush in 2000. The children of the President's conservative friends were given authority over the country's $13 billion budget.

Today in Iraq we are witnessing the terrible consequences of Bush cronyism, and it is our troops, the Iraqi people, and the American people who are paying the price.

Reconstruction has been a failure. The economy is a mess. Thousands are dying. Whole provinces have been lost. One province, Anbar Province, makes up a third of the country. The military people said it is gone. And the political solution necessary to bring Americans home is nowhere to be found.

The testimony we hear from people such as the people in this newspaper article is unbelievable. We have heard it time and again. The only people who aren't listening are George Bush and this do-nothing Congress.

If the Iraq war has taught us anything, it is that Congress must take seriously its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable, and it has not happened. For 2 years, Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq and give our troops and the Iraqi people the chance for some type of stability and success. We have said there must be a redeployment of forces this year to transition the mission, to change the mission.

We have said we must resolve the sectarian differences through a political settlement. That is called diplomacy. They need to amend their constitution.

We said they must regionalize the conflict with a contact group or conference to bring in those countries that said they will help.

We need to revitalize, and we can do that as I have indicated: get the countries that said they would help to come in and help. There needs to be a regional solution. We need to rebuild our badly strained U.S. military. There is not a single undeployed Army unit today that is battle ready. That says it all.

A number of generals have witnessed this administration's flawed Iraq policy firsthand, and they have repeatedly called for new civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

I say this with all due respect: I bet if those military personnel weren't working for Government defense contracts, we would have a few more speaking out. But we have had plenty.

In each instance, when the generals speak out, the Republican Congress blocks their efforts and puts their political interests ahead of America's safety.

The war in Iraq has been a diversion from the real war on terror. But this administration and this do-nothing Congress are content to stay the course, even as it makes America less safe and Iraq less stable.

We need a new direction. This Congress has failed.

I yield the floor.

(The remarks of Mr. Wyden and Mr. Bennett pertaining to the introduction of S. 3908 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Thank you, Mr. President.