Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I apologize for keeping you and the staff longer than you should have been, but I was unable to be here until just now. So thank you all very much for waiting for me.

Mr. President, at noon today, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that proved evidence of two things: first, the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading and deceptive and not supported by the underlying intelligence; second, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee continues to put the political interests of the Bush White House ahead of the security of the American people.

According to today's report, the Bush administration desperately sought to prove a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in order to shore up public assertions being made by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and other senior administration officials. But from this report which was made public today, at noon, we know these assertions directly contradicted the best assessments of our intelligence experts. In

short, the facts were not there to show any connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

It is clear: The administration knew or should have known it was misleading America in its effort to make the case for a war in Iraq.

Just as significant, today's report shows America what you get with a Republican-led Congress. What do you get? You get the White House refusing to declassify information. And you find that in this report. You find that the White House refuses to declassify information that would embarrass them 2 months before a midterm election. And you get a Republican-led committee that is perfectly willing to bow down to the White House and keep the American people in the dark about its mistakes and its distortions.

Nearly 4 years since the war started in Iraq, 2\1/2\ years after the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee was pressured into starting this investigation, and nearly a year after Democrats sent the Senate into closed session to discuss the Republicans' stonewalling, 60 percent of the Intelligence Committee's investigation still is unfinished, and questions as to how and why the administration exaggerated and cherry-picked intelligence to sell its case for war remain unanswered.

These are critically, crucially important questions for our troops and our security. Authorizing the use of force and placing our citizens in harm's way is the most significant vote a Member of Congress can make, and it is essential we understand how this administration skewed that decision in the runup to the war in Iraq so we can take the steps necessary to ensure these abuses are never repeated. That is why you have to complete the work of the Intelligence Committee.

With 140,000 American troops serving bravely in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, bin Laden still at large, and a growing threat posed by North Korea and Iran, it is long past time this rubberstamping Republican Congress stood up to the Bush administration and did its job, did its job of being a separate and equal branch of Government.

The problem during the 6 years of President Bush's administration is that the Constitution has not been what it should be, not the checks and balances, not three separate, equal branches of Government. It is no mystery why there have been no vetoes--because the President has gotten everything he has wanted, with the exception of stem cell. Other than that, the Republican Congress has given him everything he has wanted.

We have had no congressional oversight. We have had committees not doing their work, as indicated by the Intelligence Committee today.

I do extend my congratulations to the entire committee. They do very valuable work for this country in dealing with the most sensitive issues America has to deal with; that is, intelligence operations of this country. I am glad we have gotten 40 percent of the work that has been so long overdue. I look forward, in the weeks ahead, to getting the remaining 60 percent. I doubt it will happen before the elections, but it should.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, coincidentally, coming to the floor this morning, I signed two letters of condolences to families, one in northern Nevada--Silver Springs, NV--and one in Las Vegas, NV, to parents who lost young men in Iraq during the last week or so. I have signed lots of these letters for Nevadans, but signing one of these letters in the future will never be the same after listening to my friend from Montana.

When I first learned of Phillip's death, I said on the Senate floor: Max Baucus has a son. I know him, a wonderful young man. But this nephew of Senator Baucus was like his second son. So in the future, when I sign these letters, I will think of Max Baucus because it is easy, it is human nature, to

feel sorrow when we sign these letters and see these names--approaching 2,700--but when you have actually experienced the loss, I know, having witnessed the distress my friend has gone through, I repeat, signing that letter to one of these families will never be the same.

So I say to Senator Baucus, who is part of the Senate family, one of the senior Members of the Senate, the thoughts of every Senator go out to you, Max. And you did today what your heart said you should do. I wish we could convey to everyone in America, through you, what is going on in our country and what sacrifices families are making. We have to make their sacrifices stand for something.

Again, it is wonderful to have Max Baucus as our friend. And more especially to me, on a personal note, it is important he is my friend.

Mr. President, why would I, the Democratic leader of the Senate, stand to offer effusive praise for my Republican colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici? The reason is, I know him. He is my friend. Pete Domenici and I have worked on a subcommittee that is so important to this country, Energy and Water. My entire tenure in the Senate has been with him. The last many years Senator Domenici and I have worked as ranking member and chair. Whoever controls the Senate, Democrat or Republican, the person whose party is controlling becomes the chairman, the member of the other party becomes the ranking member of that committee. It doesn't matter to Pete Domenici or Harry Reid, as it relates to that subcommittee, which is the party in power because we have worked as partners on that subcommittee. We have done some tremendously important things for this country, not only in funding important projects but changing policy.

I like Pete Domenici for a number of reasons. I admire Pete Domenici for a number of reasons. As a boy, I wanted more than anything else to be a baseball player. I wanted to be a good baseball player. In my child's mind, I figured I could be. But as I got older, I didn't run very fast. I wasn't as strong as I thought I was, so my baseball career was not much to write home about. Pete Domenici's is. Pete Domenici was a pitcher. Pete Domenici pitched for a farm club of one of my favorite baseball teams, the Dodgers, where my good, close friend, Hall of Famer Greg Maddux, now pitches.

Pete Domenici will not make the Hall of Fame for baseball, but he will for U.S. Senator. He is a wonderful man.

One reason he is as good as he is is because of the woman he married in 1958 by the name of Nancy Burke. They are a wonderful team. I admire and respect them both very much. They have a wonderful family, a large family--two sons and six daughters.

I congratulate Pete Domenici, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico.

While the distinguished majority leader is on the floor, I just finished our leadership meeting. As I indicated to the leader last night somewhat late, we will be in a position right after the caucus to indicate to floor staff what amendments will be offered on this bill so we can finish it tomorrow. I indicated to the majority leader what we intend to do after the caucus today is completed, and I have floor staff lining up how much time will be taken on that amendment so we can finish that this afternoon or this evening, certainly. We are going to finish this bill. We have had to eliminate a number of amendments. We have squeezed those so we have a reasonable number. They are not completely squeezed out yet. They will be.

As I told the distinguished Presiding Officer yesterday, and the majority leader, we will finish the bill tomorrow.

Mr. President, I will at an appropriate time send an

Will the Senator yield?

Senator Stevens came to me and wanted to enter into an agreement that we will have two votes tonight. I am very inclined to agree to that, but I ask the Senator--we have specific times on our speakers. We need an idea as to how much longer the Senator will speak.

That way we can work through there and have the votes the majority leader wants.

Mr. President, I will momentarily send an amendment to the desk. But my disappointment is that the majority, as they have done for years when a tough issue comes before the Senate, through technical means, is preventing Senators and preventing the Senate from expressing its will--in this instance on this resolution of no confidence. This is unfortunate. We should have the ability to vote on this amendment.

Amendment No. 4904

Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, as I indicated in conversation with the Presiding Officer and the majority leader, I indicated that we, the Democrats, would complete this bill in 2 days. We will do that. It will be Thursday because today, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the weather, we will not have much time to work on it. We will finish it Thursday. I indicated that to the manager of the bill and to the distinguished majority leader.

The Senate Family

Mr. President, we are a family in the Senate. That includes not only the 100 Senators but the staff we have. Although he is off the Senate floor now, Jack Hickman, who has worked for the Senate for many years and sits right in front of me, had knee surgery or knee replacement. As a result of some things that do not work out as well as one could expect, he became gravely ill. We are so happy that all worked out, that he is now strong and healthy, and his knee works well, although the surgery was very traumatic, especially the side effects.

We are glad Jack is back and he is healthy. He represents the Senate family that works long Senate hours with little recognition. This morning you got a little recognition, which you deserve.

Legislative Priorities

Mr. President, the Chaplain, this morning, said the thoughts that were on my mind before coming here, and I certainly could not say them as well as he did, so I will read what he said in his own prayer:

Bless this legislative body today. Give Senators, during

these challenging times, the calmness of Your abiding

presence. Break the tensions of partisan divisions with the

soothing music of unified effort.

That phrase in the prayer says it all. We need to work together. I want to focus on one thing, on one number, and that is 12. Twelve is very likely the number of legislative days remaining in this Congress, the 109th Congress. With the schedules we have kept in the past, we basically work 3 days a week. We have 4 weeks, counting today. That leaves 12 days. In a normal year, in a

normal Congress, it would be an enormous challenge to complete the work we have ahead of us in 12 days.

In this Congress, which I have not said but which pundits and editorials have called the do-nothing Republican Congress, it is mission impossible. Think about all that remains to be done.

On the domestic front, the start of the new fiscal year is just days away. The Senate has yet to pass a single appropriations conference report. There has not been a single appropriations bill sent to the President. There are 13 of them. Normally, we would have basically completed them by now, or at least have them all in conference. We in the Senate have completed one appropriations bill.

With millions of children returning to school this week, this Republican-controlled Congress has yet to pass an education funding bill. In addition, there are middle-class tax breaks that have been sidetracked. There has been a big detour. These need to be extended. Why aren't they extended? There was an agreement before we left between the House and the Senate conferees to have the so-called tax extenders passed. They agreed. But someone came up with an idea, as absurd as it now sounds, that they would stick the tax extenders on a flawed minimum wage increase and, of course, estate tax repeal. It came here. We wasted a significant amount of time on it. The extenders were not passed. People are still waiting to have them passed. These are not extenders that help only Democrats, they help the country.

I had the head of the Business Roundtable call me. He said it is so important we pass the research and development tax credit. It was one of the extenders that did not pass because of this crazy idea to lump them all together. As a result, we have nothing. We have no minimum wage increase. We did not do the extenders. And, of course, the American people, they are not out there fighting for 8,100. That is who benefits from the estate tax repeal. The American people knew this was a foolish idea, and the Senate responded by making sure that so-called ``trifecta,'' that we named ``defecta,'' did not pass.

The Medicare prescription drug bill needs to be fixed. Are we going to do that? Not likely. We have a crisis in health care. I used to talk about 40 million people having no health insurance during this administration. In these 6 years it has gone to 47 million Americans with no health insurance, and millions more who are underinsured.

Energy: Because of the demand being lessened, energy costs have dropped a little bit in the last few weeks. But that has not taken away from the fact that we use 21 million barrels of oil every day in America 7 days a week, and we import more than 60 percent of that. Are we doing anything about that? No. Twelve days to do all these things.

On the national security front, just as much work remains to be done, if not more. We are a nation at war. We are still vulnerable 5 years after 9/11, and we have yet to pass the Defense and Homeland Security bills. We are going to pass the Defense appropriations bill. We are going to do that sometime on Thursday. But we have to take that bill to conference, along with the other 12 appropriations bills before we can send them to the President.

Because of delays by this Republican Congress, our borders remain open and immigration reform remains stalled. There is also port security to be considered, a phase II investigation where we had the assurance from the Republican leaders of the Intelligence Committee that they could complete phase II. They have not done that. We still do not know how the intelligence information was manipulated in an effort to take us to war in Iraq. The American people are entitled to that information.

Twelve days to finish all this work. And do you know what. It appears we are not even going to try to finish the work. The Republican- dominated Congress is not even going to try to finish this work.

Today's New York Times has the headline: ``GOP Lawmakers Set Aside Work on Immigration.'' Sunday's Washington Post had a similar article entitled: ``GOP Focus on Security Issues to Sideline Other Matters.''

The papers report that Republicans plan to leave in September with immigration undone, Medicare undone, ethics reform undone, and a budget undone. We do not have a budget. Then, after leaving here with nothing done, they are going to go out and try to convince the American people that after years of getting it so wrong, they now have the right prescription for our Nation's security.

Democrats welcome a national security debate. I hope we can have one. America needs one. There is no excuse for the Senate not completing its work. And I say, referring back to the Chaplain's prayer:

Give Senators, during these challenging times, the calmness

of Your abiding presence. Break the tensions of partisan

divisions with the soothing music of unified effort.

We want to work on a bipartisan basis to resolve the Hamdan decision. That is how we bring these terrorists to justice. We want to work with our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to work something out on the domestic spying front.

There is no excuse for the Senate not completing its work. But if Republicans want to work with Democrats during the next 4 weeks to address the mistakes of national security, we welcome that. It is about time. There is a reason the Senate faces this predicament. It is a reason we stare in the face: September 5. None of the people's legislative priorities have been addressed in this Congress. It is because this do-nothing Republican Congress has wasted 20 months avoiding the people's priorities so they could play partisan games instead.

Think back over the last 2 years. Just take 2 years, not 4 years. We began, first of all, with a month-in and month-out debate dedicated to the so-called nuclear option, the Republicans' attempt to rewrite Senate rules so we would be another House of Representatives; that we would throw away the Constitution of the United States so the Federal courts could be packed.

Then, instead of addressing the crisis in health care or the crisis in energy, the Republican Senate moved to pet issues of their political base, such as the Terri Schiavo affair--a very personal issue that took an inordinate amount of time of the Congress. And, of course, we have spent weeks and weeks on a billion-dollar giveaway to repeal the estate tax to the richest of the rich.

This past summer was no different. The weeks in June and July were given to the marriage amendment and then flag desecration--two of the least pressing issues facing Americans today. In fact, I was stunned to read in the Washington Post today that Circuit Judge Wilkinson, who was said to be in line to be the President's selection to go on the Supreme Court, wrote an editorial saying: Do not amend the Constitution with the marriage amendment. It is unnecessary. It is wrong. Let the States take care of it.

Judge Wilkinson did that, one of the President's own: a waste of time, the marriage amendment.

Then, the 1 week we worked in August was given to the Republicans' infamous ``trifecta'' bill that I have spoken about earlier, the ``defecta'' bill, as we call it. In the words of Republican Congressman Zach Wamp, Republicans tried to ``outfox'' the country into repealing the estate tax. Remember his famous quote: The only reason the Democrats are mad is we outfoxed them.

In the end, it was the Republicans who were outfoxed.

With 20 months wasted and just 12 days ahead of us, it is time for a new direction. We live in a very dangerous world. As we saw in Britain last month, there are terrorists around the world who want to do damage to Americans. Unfortunately, there are too many politicians in Washington who want to divide the country and play politics with national security instead of finding real solutions to keep America safe.

Again the Chaplain:

Give Senators, during these challenging times, the calmness

of Your abiding presence. Break the tensions of partisan

divisions with the soothing music of unified effort.

That is what we need: unified effort. It time for a new direction.

Next week our country will mark a solemn anniversary: 5 years since 9/11. I remember where I was on 9/11, right across the hall. Every Tuesday Senator

Daschle had a leadership meeting. At 9 o'clock in the morning, September 11, the towers were on fire. I saw them, as did all of America. I remember where I was, and I will bet every American can remember where they were.

Five years after 9/11 America is less safe than it should be. Today, only 5 or 6 percent of our ports are secure; cargo containers, 5 percent. Our chemical plants are vulnerable to attack. Our first responders do not have the materials to be the best they could be.

Interoperability all over America is not there. The man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden, remains on the loose. The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been ignored by the administration.

This is the Republican record of the last 5 years. It is no wonder, with elections looming, they want to try to fix it in the next 12 days. Democrats have a better plan to keep America safe. It is called real security. It is tough, it is smart, and, as we laid out in a letter to President Bush yesterday, it starts by doing what the other side has refused to do: change course in Iraq.

While Iraq was not part of the war on terror before we invaded, today it is emboldening terrorists and recruiting new ones. For 2 years, the Republicans have been content to say ``stay the course'' in Iraq. They have stood with President Bush when he says: We're not leaving Iraq as long as I'm President.

That is wrong. They may think it is smart political strategy, but we know from what is happening around the world it is a failed security policy. Each day this Republican Government stays the course in Iraq, America grows less safe.

Since we last met, 75 American soldiers have been killed. I do not know how many have been wounded. It is approaching 21,000. My friend, the distinguished minority whip, has focused on doing something about head trauma with our veterans. In articles written this past week: 10 percent of those wounded have head trauma--10 percent. That means 2,100 probably. And that is only those who now recognize they have it.

As we know, as all the articles have said, a lot of the problems dealing with one's ability to think come later. A lot of times you can't see these head injuries, but these explosions cause the brain to do things it is not capable of handling. Yet we have been turned down in getting financial help for these people who have been wounded in Iraq.

Since we last met, I don't know how many Iraqi civilians have been killed, well over 1,000. I don't know how many have been damaged for life by their wounds. And since we last met, we have spent $12 billion of the taxpayers' money in Iraq on this mismanaged war. The Pentagon now believes all the conditions exist for a civil war in Iraq. We have a civil war in Iraq. When this many people are killed, it is a civil war. The administration's most recent report to Congress says it is only going to get worse.

Our military faces shortages of equipment and personnel that haven't been seen since Vietnam. Not a single Army nondeployed combat brigade is currently prepared to meet its wartime mission, and the chief of the National Guard has said the Guard is ``even further behind or in an even more dire situation than the Army.'' At the same time, the war has emboldened regimes in North Korea and Iran, two countries which have grown their nuclear arsenals during this administration's watch.

These are the consequences of staying the course in Iraq: We are less safe, we face greater threats, and we are less prepared to meet them. Throughout this Congress, Democrats have come to the floor to demand-- we have done it on the Senate floor, in interviews, through speeches in our States, and press conferences--that the President change course in Iraq; fight a better, smarter war on terror and secure the homeland; get good grades for the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, not failed grades, as this administration has received.

Republicans have obstructed our efforts. We have offered amendment after amendment, and they have turned them down on a separate, party- line vote--amendments to protect nuclear plants, chemical plants, nuclear-power-generating facilities, amendments to help first responders--party-line votes, no. Republicans have obstructed our efforts and chosen to rubberstamp President Bush's failed security strategy.

With just 12 legislative days left before the end of this Congress, I once again ask my Republican colleagues: Is now the time for the Senate to hold President Bush accountable for his failed policies and demand a new direction? With the 5-year anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching-- next Monday--it is time for America to refocus its efforts in the war on terror by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, changing course in Iraq, and taking a smarter, better approach to hunting terrorists and preventing the next threat. We have 12 days to work together, not as Democrats and Republicans but as Americans doing everything we can to keep America safe.

On this side of the aisle, we are willing to work on these national security issues that we have read in the papers is what the Republicans want to focus on. We welcome that. But let's do it on a bipartisan basis so that when we finish our work, we are safer than when we started; not political diatribe, not an effort to embarrass one another but reflecting on what the Chaplain said today:

Give Senators, during these challenging times, the calmness

of Your abiding presence. Break the tensions of partisan

divisions with the soothing music of a unified effort.

We look forward to a unified effort. We take the challenge of spending this month debating national security issues, if that is what the majority chooses. In the meantime, we recognize what has not been done with the domestic agenda, which is also extremely important.

No.

unanimous consent request--h.r. 748

Reserving the right to object, first of all, I voted for this legislation. I support it. However, there are Senators on this side of the aisle who do not. Senator Boxer appreciates the assurance that has been given to her through the public statement of the leader. She has heard from others that does not bind what the House would do with this piece of legislation.

That is one of the problems we have when you spend so much time on issues that are taking far too much time. We talked about the estate tax endlessly. There are ways, even though there are people on this side of the aisle who object to going to conference, that this matter can be taken to conference. We pass bills all the time by sending a bill to the House and having them accept it. If that does not work, there are procedural methods that can be taken.

The bill passed by 70 votes or even more, far more than enough to overcome any procedural hurdles anyone could stand in the way of. Steps just have to be initiated.

As a result of that, on behalf of Senator Boxer and others, I object.

Mr. President, I try to read the newspapers very well every day. I am one who reads the editorials. I read people such as E.J. Dionne, who represents important, progressive writers. But I am a fan of Robert Novak. That may surprise someone, but I read Robert Novak's column whenever it appears. It may also surprise people to know that I am a friend of Robert Novak. I don't agree with him much of the time, but some of the time I do.

I want to start my presentation this morning following the suggestion made by the majority leader. In papers today all over the country is the column of Robert Novak. Among other things, he said--because of the legislative proposals we have before us that the leader says is our last chance--because of this ``Republicans cast doubt on what they really believe.''

He goes on to say, among other things, that ``A lame-duck committee chairman''--we all know that is Chairman Thomas--``overpowering Congress connotes weak leadership in both the House and the Senate and a President detached from legislative activity.''

I couldn't say it better myself. I give that to Bob Novak.

He goes on to say that Thomas, last week, combined them with the extenders bill--minimum wage and estate tax legislation.

He went on to say:

Arrogant, acerbic and authoritarian, the chairman was going

out with a bravura performance [refusing to walk across the

Capitol to meet with Senators].

He refused to come to the Dirksen building.

He said further:

Last week Senators cooled their heels for hours while

waiting for Thomas and other House Members to attend a

meeting.

And among other things, he said, ``But Grassley''--Chairman of the Finance Committee here in the Senate--``was undercut by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's support of the Thomas plan.''

As a young man I had my first trip to New York City. That is a long way from Searchlight. But I was there among the great big buildings. I was fascinated by some people on the street. They had little containers on a table there. They were asking people for a few cents to find out where the money was. I watched that. I watched people come up and give them money. It was magic. It was a shell game. I had never seen one before. The guy in the shell game never lost. I don't know how he did it. He would move these things around right in front of us. And when you picked it up, it wasn't there.

That is what we have going on here. This is a shell game with fancy names such as ``Family Prosperity Act.'' Is that something similar to the Clear Skies initiative that pollutes our skies? Is that something similar to Leave No Child Behind but leaves all of our children behind? Is that something similar to the budget deficit reduction plan which increased the deficit?

This is a shell game. I am going to have a more complete statement before we vote on this.

I wish to make a couple of comments regarding my distinguished colleague's assertion. He gives the name of somebody on a farm.

One of the sitting Senators from the State of California, with 35 million people--California feeds most of America and other parts of the world. It is the agricultural capital of the world, the great Imperial Valley and other places in California that produce wonderful fruits and vegetables.

The Farm Bureau, which supports passage of the repeal of the estate tax for reasons no one can understand because the California Senator asked the head of National Farm Bureau: During the past 10 years, give me the name of a farmer or farmers or ranchers who lost their farms as a result of the estate tax. Zero, none. That is a myth.

I will bet every Democratic Senator thinks we should do something to change the estate tax a little bit.

When I was in law school, the ceiling was $60,000. It is now $2.5 million--whatever it is, an escalating level, but it is a lot more than it was then.

I am terribly disappointed with the situation we have in the Senate today.

This should have been the day we were doing our victory laps prior to going home for the August recess. We should have felt good. I felt good. We were finally going to be able to do something about coastal erosion, to restore the coasts, especially around New Orleans. I have been worried about that. I was twice chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We finally had an opportunity, and what do we do? We should be leaving feeling good. We should feel good today about what Senators Baucus and Grassley did for us in taking care of the pensions bill, which directly affects 45 million people and indirectly affects 145 million Americans. It was done. It was signed.

That is what Robert Novak is talking about. It was done--the pension bill was done. It had the extenders on it.

That is when Chairman Thomas, as indicated here, showed that he could outsmart the House leadership and the Senate leadership. And as indicated here, Grassley was undercut by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in supporting the Thomas plan.

It was all done. It would have taken an hour here. The extenders would have been done, and the pension bill would have been completed. It was done, agreed upon by the House and Senate conferees.

We should have been leaving today feeling so good about that. We should be leaving today feeling good about having given the money to our beleaguered troops, which is so badly needed.

We learned this week that a month ago the President got a message from his generals that the war machine was worn out. They wanted $17 billion--yesterday--to refurbish the fighting forces we have. Our valiant soldiers are fighting, but they are doing it with equipment that needs repair.

We learned a day later from the head of the National Guard that they are underfunded by $34 billion. The Nevada National Guard followed up by saying, as a number of our Guard around the country said--a lot of our equipment is still in Iraq.

We should have left feeling that we had completed work on the Military Construction bill and the Defense appropriations bill. But no; we have been jammed into this situation that we have here today.

Of course, we should have felt good about these extenders that now we have been threatened: We are not going to do them at all--which we know we will do before we leave. We are going to do them.

This should not be called the ``trifecta'' bill--as it has been referred to too often by my friends in the majority--but the ``defecta'' bill.

The minimum wage issue is absolutely so hard to comprehend. We know-- and Bob Novak talks about it--the Republicans hate the minimum wage. He is the mouth of the conservatives. He says Republicans hate the minimum wage. And they give us a bill so they can say ``minimum wage''--but it is a pay cut for people in seven States. Then it is spread out over 3 years.

They couldn't bring themselves to do a pay increase right away.

The richest man in the world is named Warren Buffett. He has more money than all of the Saudi princes. He has $34 billion in the bank, cash money. He is opposed to repealing the estate tax.

Bill Gates of Microsoft--he and his father are opposed to repealing the estate tax.

What I say about the ``defecta'' bill is let us vote on the motion to proceed right now--right now. Set it up and make it so each side will have half an hour of debate on it. Let us vote on the motion to proceed right now. We don't need to wait until tomorrow morning. We are ready to do it right now, so that we can get to work on the Defense bill, so that we can do the extenders; otherwise, we are just churning time.

Let us vote on it.

The Family Prosperity Act is for 8,100 in this country. It really is. That is how many this applies to with repeal of the estate tax--8,100 of the richest of the rich.

It is time to put the charade to bed. We are ready to end this circus. Let us have the cloture vote now so we can get on with the business of the American people. The Senate has already spent far too much time on the No. 1 priority of the Republicans. The road to ``legislative heaven'' of the Republicans is the estate tax repeal.

We have spent more time on this issue in this do-nothing Congress than anything else--far more time than we have spent on our troops in Iraq--on 8,100 families. Is this the legacy of the Republican majority, to spend all of our time on repealing the estate tax and threatening-- threatening--Democratic Senators, Republican Senators, and the American people: Either do it with the ``defecta'' bill or we are not going to do anything?

We need to vote. We need a new direction in this country, and it should start right now.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, everyone should know that we have cooperated on this bill every step of the way. There was no reason to do a motion to proceed to this. We allowed this to take place in spite of the fact that there were many other things going on taking the attention of the Senators.

We have been very cooperative in offering amendments. This is a bill that is very important to the country. I think they should allow us a little bit of time to determine what is in the bill and what should be in the bill.

There are people who have amendments to offer, and for my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, to come here and threaten us that he is going to try to stop debate on this bill is not in keeping with the decorum of the Senate.

We have amendments to offer. I have offered, starting this morning, that we come up with a list of finite amendments and finish this bill in a reasonable amount of time when we get back. We are not going to be able to finish this bill now. We have the so-called trifecta, we have the pensions program we have to deal with that affects 45 million people directly, 145 million people indirectly.

In addition to that, we have these tax extenders.

We, the Democrats, didn't put us in this procedural quagmire. Had it not been for the distinguished Congressman from Tennessee, who said: We outfoxed the Democrats--no Democrat was outfoxed. The American people haven't been outfoxed. We didn't put anyone in this position. We are here because of what the majority decided to do.

Don't give us the hustle on the Defense bill. We have been ready to move to this Defense bill for a long time. But we can't do it because we are stuck on the road to legislative heaven the Republicans have, which is the estate tax repeal. So don't come here like I was born yesterday and tell me what you are going to do because I wasn't born yesterday.

We are ready to cooperate, and we have been, but don't threaten my Senators that they are not going to be able to offer amendments.

Mr. President, I want to get along with everybody. I really have tried. I came here this morning at 9:30, and I said: We are ready to vote on the big bill that cloture was filed on last night. I am ready to do that. We were ready to do that this morning. I want to finish the pensions bill. I want to do something on the extenders. That is where I hoped we would have been--to have completed all this.

No one has to worry about moving this when we get back. We want this bill to be completed. We want it to be done right. No one questions the capability of Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens on the Defense appropriations bill. But we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Hey, listen, some of my Senators are leaving. They don't need to be here to vote on cloture. Some of them would like to be here to vote on cloture. What I suggest is we have a program to complete the work around here.

People have come to me--Democrats and Republicans--asking: What do you propose? I propose we vote on the so-called trifecta--I have another name for it--and do the pensions bill and try to get the extenders done. That is not easy lifting. That is a big project for us. And the Defense bill, I am sorry it was brought up when it was and it wasn't done sooner.

As I said, we have cooperated with this body. We intend to continue to do that. And if the distinguished Senator wants to stay here all night, then fine, that is fine, we will have a cloture vote in the morning. As everybody knows, after the cloture vote, there aren't going to be a lot of people around here.

I have agreed not for endless amendments--we want to finish this bill--but that we have a list of finite amendments. These two good managers--I know when we get to these amendments, some of them will not be able to be taken, so to speak, and will be headed to the dark hole of the conference. Some amendments will have to have votes, but not many.

I said to the majority leader personally, and I say here: We will finish this bill and take no more than 2 days when we get back. I am not going to agree on a time for final passage, but I told the distinguished majority leader that. We are not trying to do anything other than to just move along.

There have been a few times--not often--I probably raised my voice a little more than I should have. If I offended anyone, I am sorry.

Mr. President, I have worked with my caucus and I have other Senators working with each Senator. We have done a number of hotlines to find out amendments that are pending. We have a number of amendments that are pending. People feel very strongly about that. We are not going to finish the bill tonight. I guess if we worked all night, if that would be the choice, it would be by attrition. I think it is just a strange way to do business.

I know people want to get the work done, but we have been willing to do this bill for a long time. I have been on the floor and talked about it: Why don't we move to the Defense appropriations bill?

We have spent all week on things, but it seems to me we should have been doing things other than estate tax repeal, which we have dealt with so many times. I have already given my speech on that. People know how I feel about that issue.

I think we are being totally reasonable. I am not telling the leader he has to file cloture on this bill. I am saying there are a lot of amendments. We have about 50 amendments on our side. We know that as time goes on they will be whittled down. These managers will accept some. The Republicans have amendments.

I say with all due respect to my friend, the distinguished majority leader--and I know his job is a lot harder than mine; I know that--we can't finish the Defense bill tonight, as much as he wants to, and as much as the two distinguished managers want to. We just can't do it. It just won't happen.

As I said, no one has to file cloture. I have told you--I say it here in front of all my colleagues--we will finish the bill in 2 days when we get back. I don't think with all the turmoil going on around the world today involving our fighting men and women--I think it might not be a bad idea to have the break to find out where we need to go when we get back because things are moving very rapidly all over the world.

Anyway, I don't think we can do it, I say to the leader. I think we would be much better off finishing this bill in a couple days when we get back, and I think we will be more in tune to do it. We will finish it as is scheduled, as I indicated to all my Senators here.

We come in Tuesday, work on the bill Tuesday, finish it Wednesday. It may be a late night, but we will finish. I told you 2 days, and all my Senators are here, and we will finish it in 2 days.

We all know the talent of the senior Senator from Alaska, a wonderful man, and it is good that he hasn't been upset with us recently. But where was my friend when we were spending all the time on gay marriage and other such things when we should have been working on this?

We don't run this place; the majority runs the Senate. We do our best to represent our constituents. But we don't need to be told it is our fault the Defense appropriations bill is not going forward. We have been willing to work on the Defense appropriations bill, and I say as someone who has managed a lot of bills here on the floor, if we were attempting to stall, there are a lot of other ways of doing that.

We had very short debates on these amendments. Any one of these amendments, I say to the leader, could have taken all day, but we set reasonable times for our amendments and we voted on them. I think the record is very clear that we have tried to cooperate.

However, there is too much to do, and I think it is asking too much, especially when we look down the road. I talked to one of my friends on the other side of the aisle. If we don't do this pensions bill, we have two airline companies that are going to dump their pensions. Everyone knows it is Delta and Northwest Airlines. They are in bankruptcy. They are going to dump those pensions, affecting tens of thousands of people working for those two airlines.

So no matter how strongly the Senator from Alaska feels about moving his bill forward, we have a lot of other things to do that are extremely important also. We understand the importance of the fighting men and women in this country, and we have been stalwarts in working with the majority in taking care of the Defense authorization bill, which moved quite quickly, considering all of the other things we had to do at the time

So I say that we will continue plowing through these amendments, but we won't finish them, no matter if we stay here all night.

No.

Mr. President, the only thing I ask is that the distinguished manager of the bill amend his consent to indicate there will be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I move that we amend H.R. 4388--it is the extenders, so that everybody knows what I am talking about--with the text of the extenders amendment I offered earlier to the defense bill. In effect, what I am saying is, we are going to try to have a decision made on the protection act. Following the disposition of that, we would go to the pension bill, and my request is that following that we would pass the extenders.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I understand the leader. He told me that earlier today. I told him I would do this. I hope that when we come back, following the completion of the Defense appropriations bill, this will be one of the first things we work on. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. I am disappointed that we were not able to complete this at the conference that was completed a week or so ago. I have no objection to the majority leader's request.

Mr. President, I will be happy to yield 10 minutes to the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. President, I would say through the chairman to my distinguished friend, that is a net estate; it is not 7 million worth of property.

First of all, I would like to extend my compliments to Charles Grassley, the senior Senator from Iowa, a gentleman farmer who we are so fortunate to have in the Senate. He, in his gentlemanly way, indicated in his speech tonight how terribly upset he was for what happened a week ago. We had this all worked out. The conference was completed. The extenders would have been done. The pension bill would have been passed.

Senator Baucus, who has been a partner with Senator Grassley for a long time, is not here tonight. As we speak, he is in Dover, DE, meeting his brother and his nephew, Philip. Philip is in a casket, having arrived from Iraq where he was killed.

Max Baucus would like to be here, but we are going to have printed in the Record what Max Baucus said:

Political games congressional leaders played with this bill

are not the way to get the job done. I hope that cooler heads

can

prevail and we can work together for sensible reform in the

future.

My distinguished friend, the majority leader, has placed a name on this legislation called the Family Prosperity Act. I suggest that it should be called the Prosperous Family Act. This legislation would only help the prosperous--only the prosperous. This should be called the Prosperous Family Act.

Sunday's Washington Post had a quote from my friend--and I know a friend of the distinguished Presiding Officer--Tennessee Congressman Zach Wamp. In this column he is quoted about why Democrats don't support the bill we are about to vote on. Congressman Wamp said: I know why Democrats are mad. We've outfoxed them.

Again:

I know why you're mad. You have seen us really outfox you.

It is not us, the Democrats, they tried to outfox; it is the American people. There is just one problem with this Republican legislation, this Republican shell game, this trick--the American people will not fall for it. As my colleague, Senator Durbin, said: This is a bet, and a bad one. The American people simply are too smart to be outfoxed. Americans are too smart to be tricked into cutting the wages of 136,000 Nevadans, and more than a million, by far, people in Oregon, Washington, Montana, California, Nevada. Those States, under this so- called Family Prosperity Act, would give less to those families who are struggling, struggling every day. In Nevada there are 136,000 of them. They work for minimum wage. If they work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, they make $10,700, plus some tips in those seven States. But not under this bill. In seven States, the poorest of the poor would get a pay cut. They would get a pay cut so that 8,100 multimillionaires can enjoy almost $800 billion in tax breaks.

Americans are too smart to be tricked into forgoing middle-class tax revenue so America can borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to give tax breaks to the wealthy few. Americans are too smart to accept any more debt and deception from this do-nothing Congress.

Here we are at 9:20, finishing this work session. The Defense bill isn't complete. The pension bill isn't complete. I hope it will be within an hour and a half or so. Middle-class tax relief isn't complete, the so-called extenders. Minimum wage has not been made possible for almost 10 years. Why? Because the majority doesn't believe in it. They don't believe in having a decent standard of living for the poor. Let the free market decide.

But, remember, the people drawing minimum wage are not kids at McDonald's flipping hamburgers. Sixty percent of the people drawing minimum wage are women, and for the vast majority of those women, that is the only money they get for them and their families. Not only do they have a tax cut for those seven States for the poorest of the poor, it is phased in over 3 years.

So the leader has said: OK, you accept this; take this or leave it. If you don't accept this, we are not going to do the extenders and we are not going to do pensions.

We have worked that out. Thank goodness we have been able to do the pensions. And we are certainly not going to do the minimum wage. We knew that. We know they don't like a minimum wage.

But it is a threat, and it is a perfect metaphor for this do-nothing Congress. For the last 19 months, congressional Republicans have done nothing for the people. The little they have done on behalf of special interests and the well connected has made America less safe and the life of the middle class much more difficult.

Look at the record. This Congress will be remembered more for interfering in the Terry Schiavo case than it will for trying to solve America's health care crisis. On every major issue, the Republican Senate has been missing in action.

Look at Iraq. Look at Iraq. Tens of billions of dollars to repair the equipment and machinery our fighting forces use; these gallant men and women--about 2,600 of them having been killed and more than 20,000 wounded, a third of them grievously, and hundreds of billions of dollars more in red ink. What we have said is please change course. But on party-line votes: No.

In fact, the situation is being made worse by rubberstamping President Bush's failed policies and allowing him to stay the course, even as the evidence suggests we desperately need to change course.

It is the same on the economy. We live in a very stressful economic situation. Over the last 6 years, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed. Even the administration admits their policies have failed for working Americans. Listen to what the Secretary of Treasury had to say the day before yesterday, Hank Paulson.

Amid this country's strong economic expansion, many

Americans simply aren't feeling the benefits. . . . Many

aren't seeing significant increases in their take-home pay.

Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy

prices and rising health care costs, among others.

The Secretary of Treasury said it. Has the Republican Congress done anything to turn this situation around? No. In fact they are seeking to make matters worse with the Prosperous Family Act--the Prosperous Family Act.

This bill, as I said, will cut the wages of millions of people, most of them in the West. This bill will add to the bankruptcy coming about of our country, as expressed by the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. It will add almost $1 trillion to the debt-- $1 trillion.

Oh, well, not really. It is $200 billion less than that.

We are told by the other side that with this trifecta--which we have nicknamed the ``defecta''--8,100 of the wealthy and well-off hit the jackpot while millions of working families get $800 billion in debt. It is another example of this do-nothing Congress putting their political interests ahead of America's interests.

We keep hearing from the other side how the Senate needs to repeal the estate tax to preserve and protect small businesses and family farms. That is a myth. Very few small businesses or family farms pay any estate tax.

The State of California is a State of 35 million people. The State of California is the breadbasket of this country. They grow so many things in the Imperial Valley and other places throughout California.

Senator Dianne Feinstein asked the Farm Bureau, which supports repeal of the estate tax: Tell us how many farms were lost by families because of the estate tax.

None. None. Over a 10-year period of time--none.

It is the same with small businesses. In fact, the Small Business Council of America has said that the repeal of the estate tax will actually harm most small business owners because of how it will change the tax benefits they currently receive.

I am all for fixing the estate tax. I have said so. But there is no reason for this fiscal irresponsibility, And it is a virtual repeal.

I talked this morning for a little while about two of the richest men in the world. The richest man in the world, Warren Buffett, he is totally opposed to repealing the estate tax, as well as the Gates family. Pierre Omidyar lives in Las Vegas, NV--Henderson, actually--a rich man, worth over $10 billion. He is a young man. He is the man who invented eBay. The first time I had dinner with him he said: Whatever you do, don't mess around with the estate tax. I owe my country the prosperity that I have.

In fact, I had a conversation yesterday with the head of the Business Roundtable. He said that all he cares about in the trifecta, the Prosperous Family Act--or the ``defecta''--is that we do something to extend the R&D tax credit. That is so important to him, he said. Guess where the R&D tax credit is. It is being held hostage with this, along with some of the other add-ons.

The American people deserve more. It is unimaginable that the Republicans would deny millions of small businesses the research and development tax credit. It is unimaginable the Republicans would deny 15 million workers a $2.10 raise. It is unimaginable they would deny millions of middle-class families tax relief with our extenders. If 8,100 of their wealthy

friends don't get billions of dollars of tax breaks first--nothing.

Soon the Senate will say its last words regarding the estate tax for this session of Congress, I hope. When this vote is completed, I hope we move on to the people's business--I will use leader time right now-- and the majority leader will consider his threat to never bring back middle-class tax relief and the minimum wage back to the floor this session. If he is serious about that threat, it just can't happen, and we will fight this. When the Senate returns in November, Democrats will not go home until the middle-class tax relief package, the extenders, is passed. My friend can make all the threats he wants, but the Senate will not adjourn until hard-working Americans get the help they need. They have to have it. They have waited 19 months. By then it will be longer.

America needs new direction. I began with a quote by Congressman Zach Wamp. Here is another thing Republicans have been saying about their ``defecta'' bill. They have been calling it a win-win.

My friend, the majority whip, Senator McConnell, said: ``There's no risk. It's all reward.''

No risk? Tell that to the millions of workers who have been making $5.15 for the last 10 years on the verge of waiting another year at least.

Win-win? Tell that to the millions of middle-class families and small businesses that will be denied tax relief because Republicans have put their political interests first.

All reward? Republicans have not outfoxed anyone. The American people can see through these political games. I am hopeful that the cloture motion will fail, and I am confident the Republican's cynical approach to dealing with the needs of our country will be rejected.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray be allowed to speak for 2 minutes. Is that OK with the majority leader? I have time left. I know we want to move on.

Mr. President, everyone will be relieved to know I don't have anything to say.

Mr. President, I am glad that we are finally getting to the point where we can finish this very important pension reform legislation. It contains a number of measures that will improve the retirement security for millions of Americans.

One of the things that this bill does is provide targeted funding relief to the airline industry--an industry that was devastated by the events of September 11. In crafting the airline relief in the Senate bill, the managers struck the appropriate balance, being careful not to favor one group of companies over another. That balance is not reflected in the airline relief proposal that the House inserted into this bill at the last minute. Ironically, those airlines, like American, that want to keep their pension plans for their workers get a much less favorable interest rate and a shorter amortization period. As a result, those airlines that have done the right thing for their workers are penalized relative to those airlines that have opted to freeze their pension plans. That makes absolutely no sense.

While I agree with my colleagues that the pension reform bill should move forward this evening, I also strongly support their efforts to fix this portion of the bill in the very near future.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say this. We are in a procedural quagmire in the Senate as happens once in a while. Of course, it would have been the right of the minority to stop this Defense appropriations bill from going forward. For a couple of reasons I felt that was inappropriate.

First of all, the defense of this country is extremely important, and we should try to get a few things done dealing with our fighting men and women around the world as quickly as we can. But one of the factors in my agreement to go forward with this legislation is the two managers of this bill are history itself. Two of the most senior Members of the Senate, two of the most experienced Members of the Senate, the two Members who manage a bill as partners, as a couple of friends should, are experienced. I felt that with their management of this bill we would have a fair opportunity to do what was appropriate. My feeling has been underscored in the little while we have been on this bill. We will give a fair shake in the process to the men and women who are defending our country.

I come to the floor today with a simple amendment. I must confess that the amendment I brought to the floor is certainly not new and unique with me. The amendment that I am offering has been taken directly word for word from a bill that was passed by the Republican- controlled House last week by a broad bipartisan margin.

This amendment consists of tax provisions--so-called extenders-- excluding the abandoned mine land fund in the House-passed bill.

Again, every single provision in my amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support. But I am forced to offer this amendment for a couple of reasons.

First, our friends in the majority have allowed many of these provisions to expire.

Second, the statements made by the majority leader yesterday--which I don't think are hard to understand--I have to confess that the statements by my friend, the majority leader, were wrong in a number of different ways. What he basically said yesterday was we have a vote on the motion to proceed to a big bill on Friday; take it or leave it take that bill which includes these extending tax provisions which are so important to the country, some of which have expired.

It also has in it a minimum wage provision which is so flawed. It takes 3 years to kick in, but, more importantly, for seven States it would be a wage cut for these people. The threats--for lack of a better way to describe it--are simply an attempt to coerce, blackmail Members of the Senate to vote for a bill that is bad just because there are certain provisions that people might like, thinking, well, this allows a chance; whatever, we are going to have to vote on the extenders and the pension bill simply is not true. We have to pass these extenders. We always do, and we will this year.

I certainly hope we pass the pensions legislation. We have worked on that in conference for almost a year.

Last Friday, it was all agreed on, and on a bipartisan basis it was done. They were ready to sign the conference report. Had that happened, we would have long been done with this.

For the majority leader to say it is now or never, you vote for this Friday morning on the motion to proceed, that it is a very faulty, wrong-headed piece of legislation, not the least of which is to create an $800 billion further deficit and debt for this country with the estate tax--$800 billion.

It affects 8,100 people in our country. We are a country of 300 million people. This whole matter is being driven for 8,100 people-- $800 billion.

If we are talking about priorities, what is more important? The pensions provisions affect 45 million people, and these extenders which affect virtually everybody in the country--businesses and, of course, directly our citizens.

We do not need to go through each of these extenders, and I am not going to do that. For example, take the one that allows taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of their college tuition expenses. Senator Frist is telling us and the American people that the 8,100 Americans that we are creating a debt for this country of $800 billion are more important than parents sending their children to college with this deduction. It doesn't sound good to me. It doesn't seem like a fair chance.

This amendment contains an R&D tax credit to encourage American businesses to make investments that will benefit American workers. What is more important, to get that done before we leave here at the end of this week or to pass an estate tax repeal costing $800 billion? Senator Frist said that the 8,100 people are more important than the R&D tax credit.

My amendment contains a provision that will extend the State and local sales tax deduction, led by a number of Members but certainly the senior Senator from the State of Texas. That State's residents will benefit so significantly because there are so many people there. But Nevada, which doesn't have as many people, has a sales tax, and we want this benefit.

Senator Frist says, no, you are not going to have a chance to do that unless you support my estate tax repeal--$800 billion to extend the State and local sales tax.

This amendment includes a provision to allow teachers to deduct out- of-pocket expenses when they incur classroom expenses. In Nevada, we are struggling to find ways to have affordable housing for our teachers. This means a lot to them--deduct out-of-pocket expenses for classroom activities. Senator Frist says, No, 8,100 of the richest of the rich of the rich take precedent.

As I have said, I am not going to go through each of these provisions. But why don't we just go ahead and pass this?

People say the House is out of session. The House is still in session.

I think it would give true impetus to this defense bill, and we could perhaps finish this bill within a day or two. There will be some stimulus for doing that. On the House side, just like we do over here, leadership can bring the House back into session. They have to come every 3 days. That is the rule. They cannot adjourn unless we give them permission.

They can do this by unanimous consent. We could do the Defense appropriations bill, and we could do these extensions.

This amendment is important. It provides an opportunity for every Member of this body to show the American people that we are prepared to respond to their needs.

These extenders should have been extended a long time ago.

I am speaking for my friend, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, as you know, is not here as a result of his nephew being killed while serving us in Iraq. He feels very strongly about this.

I don't believe we can be coerced into providing budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy in our country. We should not leave here

without giving our colleagues every opportunity to provide working Americans some tax relief, which they deserve.

Mr. President, my friends have agreed to set aside the pending amendment and I ask consent that be done, and I then call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I ask unanimous consent that the following be granted floor privileges during the consideration of H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, and any votes thereon: Tom Crowley, Navy detailee; and Rick Driscoll, State Department fellow.

Mr. President, my friend, the distinguished majority leader, has laid out a program for the Senate to follow this week. As outlined by my friend, it is Alice in Wonderland. He talks about Congress and the Senate being a deliberative body, as well as it should be, and it has not been in recent years because of the Republicans' desire to do as little as possible.

Take, for example, my friend's statement about pensions. Last Friday, conference was agreed upon--working for months and months to come up with an agreement that affects 45 million Americans. It is so important. We talked a lot about the airlines. That is important to the airlines, but a lot of other companies also benefit from this.

The conference was agreed to. The Democrats and Republicans were ready to sign. I wasn't there. I don't know who walked in, whether it was the Senator from Tennessee or the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, but someone said, no, we are not going to agree to the conference. Even though you have agreed on it, we are stripping all the extenders from this. The conference, in effect, is over.

Now to come to the Senate and say it is a take-it-or-leave it deal is a little hard to comprehend. We have a freestanding bill. If we want to be the Senate, as we are supposed to be, it is subject to amendment. A conference report is not. The pension thing was all worked out until the Republican majority decided they had to get back to the road to legislative heaven, and the only road to legislative heaven in this Republican-dominated Congress is to repeal the estate tax. So the conference report affecting 45 million people was thrown in the garbage to take care of 81 people, the richest people in America. That is what this is all about.

The minimum wage they bring to the Senate is a travesty. The State of Nevada is an example. Everyone knows Las Vegas and Reno are based on tourism. Thousands and thousands of people work in Reno and Las Vegas for tips. In Nevada, those tips are not counted against your minimum wage. It is the same in six other States: California, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota. Tourism is a big deal and the State legislatures there did not want minimum wage to be counted against their tips. Where are the States rights we hear so much about from our friends on the majority side? They wiped this out with the bill they sent to the Senate.

If this minimum wage passed, it would be a disservice and an unfair statement to the people of Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana, California, and Minnesota. To think we have a minimum wage package that is good is a joke, an absolute joke. It is spread out over a longer period of time and it penalizes seven States.

Right now, as we speak, people are being killed in Iraq. Our soldiers are being killed in Iraq. It is nighttime in Iraq. They have not finished the body count as to the deaths that occurred in the last 24 hours. Well over 100 Iraqis have been murdered or killed one way or the other by the sectarian violence. We have been told by our military commanders, and they have sent a letter to the President of the United States, saying they need $17 billion yesterday. They want an emergency supplemental to take care of the equipment our soldiers are using in Iraq. The President has kept that in his bottom drawer someplace. It has not come to the Senate. I am sure he will wait until after the fiscal year has ended, as he has done in the past. Iraq is not part of his normal budget even though the war is going into the fifth year. Shouldn't we be working on that, rather than the Republicans' domination of time in this Senate with the estate tax repeal? We have spent more time on the estate tax than any other issue. It shows the difference between the two parties. We are concerned about the poorest of the poor; they are concerned about the richest of the rich. The rich in America are getting richer--all the statistics show that--the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed. For the Republican leader to come to the Senate and say this is a take-it-or- leave package, you take the estate tax repeal--and it has these other little goodies they have stuck in it--take it or leave it, and as soon as we finish that, you can take or leave the pension bill that was once resolved Friday until they had to get back on the road to legislative heaven with the estate tax repeal--to say that is a take it or leave it is truly Alice in Wonderland. This is not the Senate.

Again, we live in this ``land of Oz.'' The conferees had signed off on the conference report dealing with pensions. Basically, there had been an agreement, and they were going to put in that, as conferences are able to do, the extenders. They all worked out. We would have been voting on that today. But they wanted the extenders to help the ``pathway to heaven''--the ``legislative pathway to heaven''-- of the Republicans on the estate tax, so that was taken away.

Mr. President, if you are working at one of the hotels in Las Vegas or one of the resorts in the State of Washington or Oregon or Minnesota or California and this minimum wage passes, you would get a decrease in your minimal salary. It does not sound very good to me. And I think I would class it and the people in Nevada and those other six States would say it is a joke. How could you pass something saying it helps me; I get a pay decrease. The minimum wage bill they have here is not only spread out over 3 years--different from ours--it also penalizes seven States.

For the majority leader to say that minimum wage is our No. 1 issue, it is one of our No. 1 issues. We have a lot of No. 1 issues. We care about the health care of this Nation--46 million people with no health insurance. We care about the kids being able to go to college. We care about stem cell research, which the President vetoed. That could be a No. 1 issue. I think Iraq is a No. 1 issue--2,600 dead Americans, more than 20,000 wounded, costing $3 billion a week. I think that is a No. 1 issue.

I did not invent for this Congress the name ``the do-nothing Congress.'' Pundits all over America call this the do-nothing Congress because we have done nothing. We have been in session very few days. We have accomplished virtually nothing. And that is why it is called the do-nothing Congress.

Now, we did not--my friend, the distinguished minority whip, the assistant Democratic leader, did not invent the cost of this bill. It is every place, in editorials all over the country--``bad bargain'' in the Washington Post, it is referred to. And in here it talks about the measure would cost $753 billion. No, it is not total repeal; it is only 80 percent repeal: $753 billion.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: House estate tax proposal has essentially the same long-term costs as earlier version.

For the people watching this, Mr. President, understand what has happened, as has been pointed out by the distinguished Senator from Illinois this morning. During the 6 years President Bush has been in office, the debt has skyrocketed, almost doubled: $9 trillion. Now, remember, during the Clinton years, the last 3 years President Clinton was President, the debt was paid down. So it is great for them to talk about pay-go. And as the majority leader mentioned, the death tax he does not like, he does not care how much it costs, he said here right now.

I would be happy to.

I say to my friend, like they pay for everything else. My 16 grandchildren are going to be paying for it, and their children are going to be paying for it. You talk about a death tax; the estate tax is not a death tax. What this Republican-dominated Washington has done in the last 6 years has passed on a birth tax to my children, their children, my grandchildren, and their children.

It is obvious what the priorities of this Republican Senate and the Republican House are: to take care of the fat cats, the rich people. That is what it is all about. They know this minimum wage legislation they sent us is flawed. It eliminates an increase for the hard-working poorest of the poor in seven States, and it is spread out over 3 years.

It has been about 10 years. As I said here yesterday, I don't know why, even though it is a flawed measure they sent us, I don't know why they have moved forward. Maybe it is because we stood up and said there will be no congressional pay raise until the minimum wage is increased or maybe it is because Oprah did a show on this last week or maybe it is a combination of both.

Of course, we should consider it.

I say through the Chair to my friend from Illinois, we are in this predicament because the Republicans have put us here. We are spending an inordinate amount of time on seeing if they can run up a debt of approximately $1 trillion to the American people to take care of 8,100 people. That is why we are here. It is not because of the minimum wage; they hate the minimum wage. You know that, I know that. It is not because of the extenders. The extenders are good for most everybody. That is why they put it on the pension bill in conference. We are here because of the estate tax repeal. That is what this is all about. All the rest is fluff. As I say, the dominating issue of this Republican Senate has been estate tax repeal. That means more to them than spending time debating the war in Iraq. It means more to them than talking about health care.

It means more to them, certainly, than talking about global warming because, according to them, it doesn't exist. It certainly has taken away time to talk about why the President vetoed stem cell. This issue relating to the estate tax has taken care of everything for them. That is their No. 1 issue. You talk about the minimum wage being our No. 1 issue. They don't have No. 2, 3, 4, 5, like we do. Estate tax is it.

Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee to allow me to make a brief statement?

Mr. President, I received a phone call early this morning from Senator Max Baucus. It was a call that was so troubling. Max Baucus and I are friends. I have such great admiration and respect and affection for him. On this issue that is before the Senate now, he has been such a good person, trying to work through the matter we are going to vote on this Friday. He called to indicate that he would not be here this week. He asked me not to say anything until he made some public statement. I have certainly followed his desire.

Senator Baucus comes from a very close-knit family. He has one son. Senator Baucus' nephew, Phillip, is also like a son to Senator Baucus. He was killed in Iraq on Saturday. He was 28 years old. He died while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province.

On behalf of the entire Senate family, I express through the Chair to our dear friend, Max Baucus, our sympathy and condolences.

Senator Baucus put out a brief statement saying that Phillip was

an incredible person, a dedicated Marine, a loving son and

husband, and a proud Montanan and American. He heroically

served the country he loved and he gave it his all. We loved

him dearly, and we'll miss him more than words can ever

express.

Mr. President, during these difficult times for Senator Baucus and the entire Baucus family while dealing with this loss, we send to them our thoughts and our prayers.