Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, first of all, I will say regarding S. 1750, I will use different words than the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Pennsylvania. My words are as follows: This legislation is a sham, s-h- a-m. Social Security benefits are guaranteed today in the United States Code, the law of the land. To meet that legal commitment, we are saving enough in Social Security to pay full benefits for a long time into the future. The only threat to that guarantee is posed by Republicans who want to undermine Social Security, slash benefits, and privatize the program.

I object to S. 1750.

I reserve my right to object to S. 1302 as follows:

Mr. President, I heard my friend, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, talk about raiding the Social Security trust funds. This message should be delivered at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue. During the Clinton years, remember, we weren't doing that. We weren't using the Social Security surplus to mask the deficit. So he should direct those remarks to this administration.

Do not be fooled. This is simply another bill to privatize Social Security. The American people have already rejected this tired approach, and for very good reason. Just like President Bush's privatization plan, the DeMint bill would require deep cuts in benefits and a massive increase in debt. Under the bill, those who divert funds into privatized accounts would have their benefits cut automatically through a privatization tax--even if the value of their account has collapsed. The bill would also require $1.7 billion in additional borrowing over the next 20 years. The bill would do nothing to strengthen Social Security--quite the contrary--and it certainly wouldn't extend the program's solvency. In fact, diverting money from the trust fund accelerates insolvency and makes matters worse.

Despite the claims of its proponents, this bill itself amounts to a massive raid on Social Security and would cut the funds available to pay guaranteed benefits. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, understand that when the Constitution was written, it didn't talk about Social Security in the Constitution. But we in Congress have given Social Security to the American people. We did it back in the 1930s under the direction of Franklin Roosevelt. That is the Court decision to which my good friend referred. The Court didn't question Americans' rights to Social Security benefits. In effect, the Court said Congress can change the law if it chooses. But there is no question that under current law, Americans do have a legal right to the benefits they have earned. There is no question about that.

I simply say that these are some of the old arguments--I guess the President is out of town, and they dug up some of his old stuff and brought it up to Capitol Hill today--the old stuff on

Social Security that the American people have determined is not good for them. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I make a couple of points that I think are worth making on this most important bill. First, I express my appreciation to Senator Domenici. He and I have worked on this bill for a long time. When I say ``this bill,'' year after year we work hard to put a bill together. Some years are easier than others. This was not an easy year. It was a very difficult year. We have a lot of Senators who are not happy with what we have been able to do, but we have done the best we can under very trying circumstances.

Our conference allocation is $750 million above the President's request. Of that amount, $600 million went to the Corps of Engineers for flood control and navigation projects. This is in relation to the post-Katrina world in which it is certainly obvious why we needed to do this. This is a wise investment of our Nation's resources. The scrutiny of the Corps' activities is only going to increase in coming years. So it is imperative that they conduct themselves in a completely open and transparent manner moving forward.

Unfortunately, the result of placing such a high priority on flood control is that important programs of the Department of Energy are essentially flat. This will not be an easy year for renewable and energy-efficient programs, the Office of Science, or the critically important environmental cleanups at nuclear weapons sites nationwide. We must do better in future years. In fact, we have to find more resources for these important activities.

Secondly, this conference report is the product of thousands of compromises, not hundreds. None of the four principal subcommittee conferees agrees with every provision contained in this conference report, and that is an understatement. For example, as far as I am concerned, we are carrying a small amount of funding and some report language directing the Department to set a nationwide competition to see if there is a State out there willing to voluntarily accept a spent fuel reprocessing facility. While I have always supported processing research as a prudent investment, I have never supported moving forward in any way on an actual reprocessing facility for many of the same reasons that I oppose centralized storage--the danger of transportation outweighs the benefits.

However, I completely respect the desire of Chairman Hobson, Chairman Domenici, and Ranking Member Visclosky to do something--I appreciate and congratulate and applaud each of them--to change the dynamics surrounding what I believe is the failed Yucca Mountain project. I have worked with Senator Domenici for many years. He is my friend. It goes without saying that we have difficulties in this bill, but it is never anything personal. We have communication that is as good as any two Senators in this Congress. It is a good give-and-take process. Senator Domenici understands that legislation is the art of compromise. We are both realists. I have been the chairman of this subcommittee on a number of occasions, and he has been the ranking member. We have always worked well together.

I thank both the House and the Senate staff for doing a tremendous job under the most trying circumstances. A lot of times we are at home, in the safety and security of our homes and we have staff members working well into the night, into the morning, trying to come up with a product they can submit to us that we can get through this body. This has been a long, difficult road this year. My hat is off to all the House and Senate staff for sticking with it and bringing forward the recommendations that will be accepted this evening.

On the House side, thanks to Kevin Cook, Scott Burnison, John Blazey, Terry Tyborowski, Tracy LaTurner, Tanya Berquam, Dixon Butler, Peder Morebeer, and Felicia Kirksey.

On the Senate side, thanks to Scott O'Malia, Emily Brunini, Roger Cockrell, and Nancy Olkewicz. I probably shouldn't spend too much time on Drew Willison, but I couldn't spend too much time. What he has done in working to craft this legislation, not for me, not for Senator Domenici, not for the Senate, but for the people of this country, words cannot express adequately my appreciation for his good work. No one--I say that without qualification or reservation--knows this bill better than he does. His work is something the American people should understand they have gotten their money's worth from the work he has done. It was a tough year. It is a product we can all be proud of.

I thank the Chair.

I yield back all of the time I have.

I have yielded back my time. How much time is left?

That is correct.

That is correct.

I also pledge to work with the Department and affected Members of this body to reach an acceptable outcome.

auburn dam

I also concur. The potential consequences in this region are enormous. In California, assessing earthquake risks for a major project like this is an important part of the process. Concern about the possibility of earthquakes contributed to putting the project on hold in the first place. This concern remains important and should be addressed before deciding whether to proceed. The best way to do this is for the U.S. Geological Survey

to produce an updated analysis on the risks involved.

It is true that while we were unable to provide funding above the President's request for this activity, the intent of the conference committee was that this activity would continue within its regular operation and maintenance allocation.

Senator, that would be my understanding and expectation.

Senator, I agree that the administration needs to provide more adequate funding to the fossil energy research, development, and demonstration accounts. I also agree with you that there should be no assumption by the administration, Members of Congress, State governments, or any other parties that there is a guarantee that any funding, including the administration's future budget request for FutureGen will be provided by the Congress, given the austere budget environment that we are in. It is my understanding that $237 million is deferred and is available in fiscal year 2007 and beyond for a number of pressing fossil energy funding needs. The FutureGen program will only be given consideration for such deferred amounts if and only if all other critical fossil energy programs are fully funded, especially the Clean Coal Power Initiative.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Valarie Young, a high school social studies teacher at the Advanced Technologies Academy in Las Vegas, who was selected as one of two winners from Nevada of the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award for 2005.

The Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards program, which began in the early 1980s, provides public recognition and financial rewards to elementary and secondary school teachers, principals, and other education professionals who strive for excellence in education. By honoring outstanding educators from across the United States, the program's goals are to attract, develop, motivate, and retain talented educators.

It takes a special, dedicated educator to make a subject come alive for students and to teach them that knowledge about history will serve them in their future.

Mrs. Young's creativity makes history come alive for her students, and this Milken Family Foundation distinction validates her efforts. I salute Valarie Young for her service and dedication to the students of the Advanced Technologies Academy, and extend my best wishes for a successful future.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Ellen Fallon, a sixth an eighth grade teacher of advanced mathematics at Carson Middle School in Carson City, who was selected as one of two winners from Nevada of the Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award for 2005.

The Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards program, which began in the early 1980s, provides public recognition and financial rewards to elementary and secondary school teachers, principals, and other education professionals who strive for excellence in education. By honoring outstanding educators from across the United States, this program seeks to attract, develop, motivate, and retain talented educators.

Strong mathematics instruction is an integral part of preparing students for the global economy. Her dedication to this goal is what makes Mrs. Fallon's recognition all the more significant.

Carson Middle School is all in the family for the Fallons: Mrs. Fallon is an alumni, her husband is a sixth grade English teacher, and her daughtr is a seventh grade student at the school.

I trust that her example will influence others to pursue teaching excellence and applaud the Milken Family Foundation for recognizing her leadership. I salute Ellen Fallon for her service and dedication to the students of Carson Middle School, and extend my best wishes for a successful future.

Mr. President, I have an amendment that I send to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of our Nation's veterans to once again discuss the unfair, outdated policy of ``concurrent receipt.'' It is an issue I have talked about on this floor many times.

Concurrent receipt is a policy which prevents veterans from receiving the full pay and benefits they have earned. Many Senators have joined me in fighting this policy over the years, and we have made some progress on behalf of our veterans.

In 2003, the Congress passed legislation which allowed disabled retired veterans with at least a 50 percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt benefits over a 10-year period. This was a significant victory that put hundreds of thousands of veterans on the road to receiving both their retirement and disability benefits.

Last year, we made a little more progress. I joined with Senator Levin and others, and we were able to eliminate the 10-year phase in period for the most severely disabled veterans, those with a 100 percent disability rating.

As we noted at that time, the 10-year waiting period is particularly harsh for these veterans, some of whom would not live to see their full benefits restored over the 10-year period, and others who could not work a second job and were in fact considered ``unemployable.'' So we passed legislation to end the waiting period and provide some relief to these deserving, totally disabled veterans.

Unfortunately, as I noted on this floor a few months ago, the administration has failed to implement our legislation. Instead of eliminating the waiting period for veterans who are 100 percent disabled, they have eliminated it only for some.

They have created two categories of disabled veterans. If you are rated as ``totally disabled,'' you do not have to wait. You get 100 percent of your benefits today. But if you are rated as ``unemployable,'' you still have to wait.

This is not what we intended when we passed legislation last year. And earlier in this session, a number of Senators and I sought to correct this disparity.

We passed a sense of the Senate resolution that clearly expressed our intentions: all completely disabled veterans should have their benefits restored immediately. This was not an attempt to make law, but merely to express what my colleagues on both sides of the isle intended when we passed legislation last year.

Unfortunately, the majority-controlled conference committee removed this resolution. So today, veterans rated as ``unemployable'' continue to face this delay.

This is not a partisan issue. These veterans do not have 10 years to wait for the full phase in of their benefits. It is time for the administration to stop playing games and start honoring these veterans service.

For all other purposes, both the VA and the Defense Department treat ``unemployables'' exactly the same as those with a ``totally disabled'' ratings.

In fact, these unemployables must meet a criterion that not even the 100 percent-rated disability retirees have to meet. They are certified as unable to work because of their service-connected disability. The administration pays equal combat-related special compensation to both categories.

Yet, the administration is discriminating unemployables and 100 percent disabled retirees with non-combat disabilities in flagrant disregard for the letter of the law as interpreted its own legal counsel.

So once again, I rise on these veterans' behalf. Today I introduce amendment No. 2441, legislation which explicitly ends the 10-year waiting period for the most disabled veterans.

The time to act is now.

I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. These veterans have faced arbitrary discrimination long enough. We must pass this legislation, so that these veterans can get the benefits they deserve.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2436

Mr. President, with regard to the deficit reduction bill, you can have a cow and put a sign on him saying he is a horse, but he is still a cow. I think we would be better informed if we called this the bait-and-switch bill. How do you call a bill deficit reduction when it raises the deficit in 1 year by $30 billion? How do you call a bill a deficit reduction bill when it increases the deficit? If there was ever an Orwellian pronouncement, that is it. I guess if you keep saying deficit reduction, some people are going to believe it is deficit reduction. It increases the deficit.

This could have been a good week for the American people. It could have been a week Republicans joined Democrats and finally addressed priorities of working families. The polls around the country today make a pronouncement: President Bush's approval rating is 35 percent. Do you think it could be because we are trying to call a bill a deficit reduction bill that isn't one? How does the majority feel they can do that? The American people can see through that: A deficit reduction bill that increases the deficit $30 billion, and the Republicans are bragging about increasing the deficit? They think they can get around that by calling it a deficit reduction bill? No wonder this White House has an approval rating of 35 percent.

This week could have been a week we agreed to do something about the record debt. It could have been the week we addressed the needs of middle-class families. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is being squeezed between declining incomes, rising prices of health care, college tuition, gas, and heat.

It could have been the week we finally got serious about helping our

brothers and sisters in the gulf coast. We can hear pronouncements from the Republican majority that the response to these disasters has been excellent. Prove that to the American people with the developments after Katrina.

Listen to the radio. I listened to public radio this morning, and they had a segment on about what is happening to the people in Louisiana. They cannot go to school; there are no schools there.

This could have been the week we finally got serious about the gulf coast, and we have not. That is the kind of week that we Democrats hoped to have. The record will show we fought for multiple amendments that would have helped working Americans.

Let me take a comment on the so-called spendometer. One of the Senators brought that in the other day, and I commented on it. All the amendments that have been offered by the Democrats, with rare exception, have all been pursuant to Senator Conrad's pay-as-you-go amendment that he offered; that is, we had offsets. They did not increase the debt.

This spendometer is as phony as this deficit reduction bill. We could have, if we had followed the direction of the amendments we offered-- there was one by Senator Bill Nelson to keep Medicare premiums from increasing. That was defeated on a party-line vote. The Republicans beat us on that. Senator Murray offered an amendment to protect prescription drug coverage for many of our Nation's seniors. That was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Senator Lincoln tried to provide emergency health care for survivors of Katrina. That was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Senator Jack Reed tried to ensure an adequate supply of housing, and that was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Finally, Senator Cantwell had an amendment to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska from oil drilling. We fought for these amendments on this side of the aisle. We reached out to the other side and asked: Join us, please join us, because we understand that together America can do better.

I believe the Republicans have misplaced priorities. Unfortunately, the good week we could have given the American people turned into a great week for special interests.

My distinguished friend, the majority leader, talks about all these great accomplishments we have had this past year. I am not going to talk about every one of the items he mentioned, but I will talk about the Energy bill.

The Energy bill did nothing to help the American consumer. All it did was give a big sop to the already fat and beefy oil industry. They had $100 billion in profits this year. I don't think it was much of an Energy bill. I really do believe we can do better.

The Republican budget we focused on this week cuts $27 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. It cuts housing, it cuts support for our farmers, and then turns around and spends billions on tax breaks for special interests and multimillionaires. The big tax cuts are going to come the week after next. We will wind up with $30 billion, if things go as has been indicated by the Finance Committee. I hope we can do better than that.

Let's take a look at the tax breaks. Those who make over $1 million will see a benefit of about $35,000. Those with incomes of between $50,000 and $200,000 will see a benefit of $112, and those with incomes of less than $50,000, the benefit will be $6.

Can't we do better than that? Yes.

Let's look at the lucrative benefits we handed out to the oil and gas industry in the Energy bill I spoke about earlier and, of course, opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. It takes our country in the wrong direction. We should diversify, becoming less dependent on oil as an energy source. We didn't do that in this legislation.

Finally, let's look at what we didn't do this week. We didn't do anything. Very minimally did we do anything to help those people who are the survivors and those who were devastated along the gulf coast. We didn't do anything to reduce energy prices. We didn't do anything to deal with the pension crisis we are facing in America. We did nothing to deal with the health care crisis we are facing in America. We have not passed the Terrorism Reinsurance Act.

I think most Senators have gotten calls from major companies who can't build. I got a call yesterday from one major hotel owner who has hotels all over the world who said they have in Las Vegas four properties they want to build and they cannot build them. They cannot get anybody to give them the insurance.

We have 2 weeks before our next recess, and we have much to accomplish. The American people are counting on us, and we on this side of the aisle, the Democrats, are going to do everything we can to not let them down. Just because you call something a Deficit Reduction Act doesn't mean it reduces the deficit, by definition of a Republican- controlled Washington.

Mr. President, has the majority leader completed his statement?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Republican budget and the package of reconciliation bills we will be debating and have debated this past week. The Republican budget and the reconciliation bills are fiscally irresponsible and simply will increase the deficit, which is already staggering--$8 trillion.

The budget and these reconciliation bills are based on the wrong values. They harm vulnerable Americans. And these cuts simply provide tax breaks for special interests. With so many other serious problems facing middle-class families and our Nation, the decision to focus on this reconciliation legislation reflects seriously misplaced priorities. Certainly, together we can do better than this.

The budget of the United States ought to be a mirror of our Nation's values. The budget should reflect what we think is important, what we care about and what we don't. It says a lot about who we are and what we value as a people and a nation, this thing we call the budget.

In essence, a budget is a moral document. Unfortunately, the Republican budget is an immoral document. That is not my term, Mr. President. That is the conclusion of some of our Nation's leading religious leaders who, citing scripture and the Bible, have urged all of us to oppose this budget reconciliation process. As Bishop Mark Hanson, the presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, put it, ``This is not the time to cut . . . important programs while using the cuts to pay for tax breaks for those who don't need them.''

My Republican friends will portray their budget as a way to reduce the deficit. In truth, their budget and these reconciliation bills actually make the deficit worse. In fact, debt under their budget would go up by about $3 trillion in just 5 years. That is fiscally responsible? No. It is irresponsible at any time but especially when we should be saving to prepare for the baby boomers' retirement.

Let's review a little bit of the history. When this administration came to power, our Nation had finally put our fiscal house in order. After many years of deficits and raids on Social Security to pay for other programs, Democrats, without the help of a single Republican vote, stopped that practice.

As a result of our efforts, this Nation ran a surplus from 1998 through 2001, and it was projected we would enjoy surpluses as far as the eye could see. At the time, our future looked so bright that many economists, including Alan Greenspan, seriously worried about what would happen to financial markets if we eliminated our debt altogether. Unfortunately, in these 5 short years, with Washington Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, we have moved from a period of record surpluses to a time of record deficits. Once again, we are raiding Social Security, and the deficits in each of the last 3 years have been higher than at any time before President Bush took office.

This year, Social Security has had taken from it--I don't know the exact amount--about $175 billion to mask the deficit. The latest Republican budget before us will make matters even worse. While the majority has divided its budget in a way that obscures its overall effect, nobody should be fooled.

Viewed as a whole, budget reconciliation would increase the deficit by more than $30 billion. After 5 years under their budget, our national debt would exceed $11 trillion.

But the problems with their budget go well beyond its fiscal irresponsibility. This budget reflects the wrong values. It puts more burdens on those already struggling. And if that isn't bad enough, it takes the sacrifices it demands of the less fortunate to partially pay for another round of large tax breaks for the elite of this country.

Let's look at what is in the bill before us.

The budget increases burdens on America's seniors by increasing Medicare premiums, and we have not seen what the House is going to give us.

It cuts health care, both Medicare and Medicaid, by a total of $27 billion.

It cuts support for our farmers by $3 billion.

It cuts housing.

It allows drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge, at the behest of the oil and gas industry, even though this year they are going to make a $100 billion profit.

If we take a look at what is happening in the House of Representatives, we can see what is likely coming down the pike from them:

Student loan cuts, food stamp cuts, cuts in child support

enforcement, deeper and more painful cuts in health care.

Why? Why are we using expedited procedures for cuts that will harm millions of seniors and working Americans? Is it to reduce the deficit or to pay for Katrina? No; no on both counts. Is it to prepare for the avian flu? No. It is to provide congressional Republicans fiscal cover today so they can turn around tomorrow to provide tax breaks to special interests and multimillionaires.

Let me be more specific. The capital gains and dividend tax breaks in the Republican budget would provide 53 percent of its benefits to those with incomes greater than $1 million. Those lucky few would get an average tax break of about $35,000.

What about those with incomes between, say, $50,000 and $200,000? Well, they will get an average cut of $112. How about those with incomes of less than $50,000? Six dollars--$35,000 for those with incomes of more than $1 million, $6 for those earning less than $50,000. And to partially pay for these tax breaks, many Republicans now want to cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut agriculture, cut housing, cut student loans, cut child support enforcement, cut services on which Katrina survivors should be relying, cut benefits needed by our Nation's most vulnerable Americans.

Now you know why some of our Nation's most respected religious leaders call this budget immoral. These choices do not reflect the best of American values. That is not what Americans would want. America can do better.

Finally, beyond the fiscal irresponsibility of this budget and the disturbing choices it makes, there are other more important priorities the Senate should be addressing. Take, for example, skyrocketing prices of fuel. Families are struggling to fuel their vehicles and heat their homes. Farmers and businesses are feeling the pinch. Democrats have a plan to respond, to address price gouging, and ultimately make our Nation energy independent. That is more important than harming the vulnerable to provide tax breaks to special interests while increasing the deficit.

Hurricane survivors are still struggling. Thousands lack health care coverage. More than 200,000 still live in motel and hotel rooms. Devastated communities have been forced into massive layoffs and are unable to provide even basic services, such as a place for kids to go to school. And many survivors who have lost everything are facing the threats of foreclosure and bankruptcy in homes that do not even exist. Democrats have a plan to address these urgent needs. That is more important than harming the vulnerable to provide tax breaks to special interests and multimillionaires while increasing the deficit.

The Iraq war is not going well, as we all know. We were promised by this administration that it would. Mr. President, 2,036 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Tens of thousands have been wounded, badly injured; 150,000 more are still in harm's way in Iraq, while the administration still has no plan to end the conflict and bring them home. Instead of being greeted as liberators, the violence continues nearly 3 years after the start of this conflict. Our Nation badly needs a strategy for success, and that, too, is more important than harming the vulnerable to provide tax breaks to special interests and multimillionaires while increasing the deficit.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this budget piece by piece. It is fiscally irresponsible. It is based on the wrong values and reflects the wrong priorities. I would hope together we could do better. Let's reject this budget, and let's focus on the real needs of the middle class and our Nation.

Mr. President, I know the majority leader is here to be recognized. I ask through the Chair to the distinguished majority leader if I could be recognized for a minute or two prior to his recognition. I know he has a right to do that.

Mr. President, simply what I want to say is we have our Chaplain, whom I have grown to care a great deal about. He is part of the Senate family. He counsels, he prays for us every day. He suffered a loss in his family in recent hours; he lost his brother. I want him on behalf of his Senate family to know our thoughts go out to him. I wish I had his ability to counsel and speak with him as he does with all of us. All I can say is my thoughts are with him and, recognizing his strong faith, I know he will pull through, but I know it will be difficult.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, just a couple of days ago, my son Leif called me and indicated that his lovely wife Amber was going to have another baby. That will be our 16th grandchild.

Mr. President, I have been in public service a long time. Never have I been so concerned about our country. We have gas prices that are really unbelievable. This year, gas prices have been over $3 in the State of Nevada. Diesel fuel is still over $3 a gallon in Nevada.

The majority leader of the House of Representatives is under indictment. The man in charge of contracting for the Federal Government is under indictment. We have deficits so far you can't see them. The deficits have been basically run up by President Bush's administration these last 5 years.

We are the wealthiest nation in the world, but we are very poor as it relates to health care. We have an intractable war in Iraq. Is it any wonder that I am concerned about my family, my grandchildren?

This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, also on the President's staff, a senior adviser to the President.

Mr. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135

years. Is it any wonder that I am concerned about my grandchildren?

This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and were morally repugnant. A decision made to place U.S. soldiers, our military, into harm's way, I believe, is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress and in the President. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about: how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.

These are not just words from Harry Reid. COL Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff--Colin Powell, of course, was Secretary of State--this man was Chief of Staff for 4 years. Here is what he said about the war in Iraq.

In President Bush's first term some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security, including vital decisions about postwar Iraq, were made by a secretive, little known cabal, made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions.

That is what I am here to talk about today. As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this administration. This cloud is further darkened by the administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies throughout this administration.

Unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican administration accountable for its misdeeds on these issues.

During the time we had a Democratic President--8 years--and when the Democrats were in charge of the committees, we were in the majority, oversight hearings were held covering the gambit of what went on in that administration. Today, there is not an oversight hearing held on anything.

Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist acts of 9/11, senior officials in this administration recognized those attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who had gotten in its way as it made its case for attacking, for invading Iraq.

There are numerous examples of how the administration misstated, and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. The administration's statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capability and ties with al-Qaida represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. The American people were warned time and time again by the President, the Vice President, the current Secretary of State in her other capacities, about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said:

Iraq has reconstituted its nuclear programs.

Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that if left unchecked Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. Obviously, we know now that their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false--the situation very similar with respect to Saddam's links to al-Qaida. The Vice President told the American people:

We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear

weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with

various terrorist groups including the al-Qaida organization.

These assertions have been totally discredited--not a little bit, totally discredited. But again the administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the Government's top experts did not agree with these claims. Again, Wilkerson is a person in point.

What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Nothing.

Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No.

Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No.

Did it even attempt to force this administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.

Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities was not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prison abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. We see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this administration. Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than to get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened.

There is also another disturbing pattern; namely, about how this administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Often this administration's activity sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career was ended, he was fired, relieved of duty, when he suggested it would take 200,000 troops. Well, it has taken a lot more than that.

When the OMB Director Larry Lindsey suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, he was dumped, fired.

When the U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the conclusion about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the administration simply pulled out its inspectors.

When Nobel Prize winner and head of the IAEA Mohamed ElBaradei raised questions about the administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the administration attempted to remove him from his post.

When Ambassador Joe Wilson stated there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire weapons from Niger, the administration not only went after him to discredit him, they launched a vicious and coordinated campaign, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA spy. These people now have 24-hour protection, fearing for their own safety.

Given this administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements--and I have only mentioned a few--what has been the response of the Republican-controlled Congress? Absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.

Everyone may think the troops in Iraq are 100-percent Republican. I have met a friend, a marine. He was over there when the elections were held 10 months ago. He said where he was, he never even went to the bathroom without a rifle. Wherever he was on duty, all over this area, he said he could not find anyone who was happy with the way the elections turned out. The Republicans will do anything they can to keep the truth from people such as my marine friend. I would give you his name except he is stationed right here in the Marine Corps.

This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000--2,025 now--Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the month of October alone, the fourth deadliest month in this ongoing 3-year war. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain over there in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been made and continue to be made.

We have had soldiers and marines from Nevada killed, from Ely, from Las Vegas, from Henderson, from Boulder City, from Tonopah. Every time one of these deaths occurs, it is a dagger in the heart of that community.

This behavior is unacceptable. I am a patient man, Mr. President. I am a legislator, and I know things don't happen

overnight. I am a patient man. But the call from my son has put this in perspective. I am worried about my family. The toll in Iraq is as staggering, I repeat, as it is solemn. The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice.

For example, more than 40 Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about this administration's Iraq policy, and we received a four-sentence answer in response:

Thank you for your letter to the President expressing your

concerns with Iraq. I shared your letter with the appropriate

administration officials--

Remember, we wrote it to the President--

and agencies responsible for formulating policy

recommendations in this area. Please be assured your letter

is receiving close and careful attention. Thank you for your

comments. Candy Wolff.

That is a letter that duly elected Senators of the United States Senate wrote to the President of the United States, and we get a letter from Candy Wolff saying: Thanks, we're working on it.

America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching, comprehensive investigation into how the Bush administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include: How did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said.

Who did the Bush administration listen to and who did they ignore?

How did the senior administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?

What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? We know what Colonel Wilkerson says.

How did the administration coordinate its effort to attack individuals who dared challenge the administration's assertions? We know what happened to them. I listed a few.

Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents which will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements? Unfortunately, the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment. Despite the fact that he restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing except to assemble a few quotes from Democratic and Republican Senators going back to the first Iraq war.

We need a thorough investigation that that committee is capable and tasked to do. At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security.

If he does anything at this point, I suspect it will be playing political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from this administration.

Key facts about the Intelligence Committee's phase II, June 4, 2003: Intelligence Committee commits to bipartisan review of the deeply flawed intelligence on Iraq WMD phase I.

February 12, 2004, Intelligence Committee commits to phase II investigation looking at five areas, including whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence.

July 9, 2004, committee publishes phase I report on the intelligence agencies' mistakes on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller says publicly that phase II is as yet unbegun. Republican Chairman Roberts says it is one of my top priorities.

July 11 on ``Meet the Press,'' Republican Chairman Roberts says:

Even as I'm speaking, our staff is working on phase II and

will get it done.

Fall of 2004, House Intelligence Committee, after no follow- through on the Iraq WMD investigation, the House announced on May 2003 no final report.

Republican Committee Chairman Porter Goss is selected as CIA Director. Regarding the question of the Valerie Plame leak, Goss previously said: ``Show me a blue dress and some DNA and I will give you an investigation.''

November 2004, we had the Presidential election.

March 2005, the President's hand-picked WMD Intelligence Committee says the intelligence agencies got the intelligence dead wrong, but says that under the President's terms of reference we are not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the intelligence community.

March 31, 2005, Senator Roberts says it would be a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further. Replow?

April 10, 2005, on ``Meet the Press,'' Senator Roberts commits to Tim Russert that the review will get done.

September 2005, committee Democrats file additional views to their authorization bill blasting the committee for failing to conduct phase

No objection.

Mr. President, our representatives will be Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Feinstein.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an important day in Nevada's history. One hundred and forty-

one years ago, on October 31, 1864, Nevada was admitted into the Union as the 36th State.

I am proud of Nevada's heritage. Native Americans have called Nevada home for thousands of years, evidenced by the spectacular petroglyphs found in our mountain ranges. Pioneers blazed trails across the Nevada frontier and miners discovered lines and lodes of precious minerals that would to lead to Nevada's designation as the Silver State. While we honor and maintain our heritage, we also look with excitement at what Nevada has become today.

Every year, we welcome tens of thousands of people from across the Nation who want to make Nevada their home. We are one of the fastest growing States in the country, and all Nevadans, past and present, have made the Battle Born State what it is today. From the glittering lights of The Strip to the quiet strength of the bristlecone pines in the Great Basin, Nevada is a place we are proud to call home. Nevada is the majestic Ruby Mountains, the world-famous Black Rock Desert, magnificent Lake Tahoe, hard-working mining towns, and of course, Las Vegas, the world-class destination where millions of people from all over the world come to visit every year.

From the population centers of Las Vegas and Reno to rural communities that remain the heart of the American west, I have traveled all over the State in my decades-long career as an elected representative, and I am privileged to represent Nevadans here in Washington. Every day, I stand on the Senate floor and do the best I can for the Silver State and all those who call Nevada home.

I stand with my fellow Nevadans to honor our rich history and heritage and look forward to our bright future.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Ruby Jubilee of the Crisis Call Center in Reno, NV. For 40 years, volunteers have provided intervention, prevention, referral, and education services to the people of Nevada. The center has been a lifeline for countless individuals. While its volunteers know how valuable their efforts are, we will never know how much pain they have prevented or the full extent of the healing they have promoted.

The Crisis Call Center was founded in 1966 at the University of Nevada, Reno to combat the high rate of suicide. However, its scope grew over time. Now an independent nonprofit, the Crisis Call Center offers support to all individuals in crisis, including victims of sexual assault and child and elder abuse and neglect. It is still the leading community organization working to end suicide in Reno.

Additionally, the Crisis Call Center runs outreach projects for youth and seniors, groups that are at high risk for depression and suicide. I am particularly impressed by The Senior Connection, a specialized hotline to provide advocacy, support, and education to seniors. Uniquely, the services are provided by seniors for seniors.

The Crisis Call Center is one of the oldest continuously operating crisis centers in the country. It has provided a model for the many that followed and its innovative approaches ensure that it will be a leader for many years to come. I hope that you will join me in celebrating this milestone and in looking forward to the important work the Crisis Call Center will perform in the future.

Mr. President, it is not often you see a spotlight shine on the differences between the two parties, between the Democrats and Republicans. This debate is that spotlight. This budget that is attempted to be reconciled is, as I have said on a number of occasions, an immoral budget. It hurts the poor and middle class. It makes all the rewards to those people who are already fat as a result of our system.

The Republican budget is fiscally irresponsible. It sets forth the wrong values and misplaced priorities. President Bush has the worst fiscal record in the Nation's history, taking a surplus when he was elected President from some say

as much as $7 trillion over 10 years, and to have squandered it in 5 years to where now we have an $8 trillion deficit. That is a pretty big turnaround. Record surpluses we had have been turned into historic deficits. This immoral budget that is attempted to be reconciled will increase the deficits by $30 billion more.

Following the budget choices made by the Republicans in this budget, in 5 years the deficit will increase to over $11 trillion from its now $8 trillion. Simply the wrong choices have been made with this budget.

This Senate reconciliation spending bill makes the wrong choices. It increases the burdens on seniors in a number of ways, not the least of which is increasing Medicare Part B premiums, cuts health care generally by $27 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts, cuts agriculture, cuts support--that is directed at farmers--by $3 billion.

In my little town of Searchlight, NV, something called the Farmers Home Administration came in and helped build 28 units of senior housing for the poor. They are, frankly, the nicest homes in town. We don't have these programs anymore, but those 28 units in Searchlight only become vacant when someone dies. Once someone gets in there, qualifies to get in there, they are there until they die. There is a waiting list even in the little community of Searchlight. It is so long people no longer even get on the list. But this budget the Republicans are pushing down the throats of the American people reduces availability of affordable housing. There will be no more places such as that in Searchlight. They are cutting that.

But they are going to drill in Alaska. Remember, we cannot produce our way out of the problems we have with energy. America has, counting ANWR, less than 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world--less than 3 percent. But they finally have been able to accomplish under this reconciliation drilling in Alaska, in this pristine wilderness.

I would think the President would be better off looking at alternative energy, giving incentives for people to develop energy from the sun and wind, geothermal, biomass. No, it is not in this budget. More efficient automobiles maybe. Production of natural gas during the last 5 years has been stable. Right now our reserves are the same as they have been for 5 years. But the people controlling oil, these oil and gas companies, are doing well. For someone heating their home with natural gas--and that is almost 50 percent of the American people--the cost will go up 48 percent this year. Maybe the President should spend a little time on that.

This budget provides tax breaks for multimillionaires and special interests. Reconciliation paves the way for budget-busting tax breaks, including capital gains and dividend tax breaks, that will benefit special interests and the wealthy. Tax breaks exceed spending cuts by more than $30 billion in this immoral budget. Well over a majority, some 55 percent of the benefits of capital gains and dividends, go to those with incomes of more than $1 million. The average benefit of these tax breaks for those with incomes of more than $1 million will be approximately $36,000. Those people making between $50,000 and $200,000 get $112. Those with incomes under $50,000 will get $6--$6, compared to millionaires getting $36,000. It doesn't seem quite fair to me.

Is this the reason the leadership of the Protestant churches in this country has called this an immoral budget? It could be one strong reason.

But the House--they haven't been working much lately because they have been trying to figure out how to cut even $15 billion more. They can't quite get the votes together, but they are going to try again next week. The House plan cutting $15 billion, we are told, would include more in student loan cuts, food stamp cuts, cuts in child support enforcement and foster care cuts, deeper and more problematic cuts in health care. Other priority reasons in this country should come first. Rather than harming the vulnerable while providing special tax breaks to the rich increasing the deficit, we should address the Nation's most urgent problems.

I have talked about natural gas. That is only one way to heat your home. But gasoline for your car, that is what we should be focusing on. Oil companies this year will make $100 billion in profits--$100 billion in profits. I say that is too much. I say it is time this Congress, rather than pushing forward on this immoral budget, should take a look at the immoral and obscene profits these companies are making, maybe take a look at a windfall profits tax or maybe allow the FTC to do something about this price gouging. These rising energy costs are burdening families, businesses, and farmers.

We have said there are programs we need to take a look at. Katrina victims are still victims. We as a Congress have not provided them the help they need.

I haven't even mentioned the war on Iraq we should be spending some time here on the Senate floor talking about.

Can we do better? Yes, America can do better. Have we done better? Yes, America has done better. During the Clinton years--during the last 3 years he was President--we were paying down the debt. We paid down the debt by half a trillion. We were spending less money than we were taking in. Yes, it can be done. And, yes, we are going to spend this next week on this budget that is fiscally irresponsible, giving the Congress direction in values that are wrong. All across this reconciliation are misplaced priorities. We can do much better. We have done better. And again the spotlight shines on the difference between the two parties here as not often seen. But here we will see it next week, the difference between the two parties.

I yield the floor.