Floor Statements

Mr. President, those who watch C-SPAN and people who are watching us in other ways are many times well versed in Senate procedure. People would note today that we didn't come into session until 12 noon. With all the many things we have to do, why are we taking the morning off, so to speak? We have so much work to do. But yet most people's work day is half completed and we are just starting.

The reason is we have another example of obstructionism. The reason we had to come in late today is because we have an extremely important piece of legislation that is being marked up in a committee. The Environment and Public Works Committee has been scheduled to begin to mark up a crucial piece of legislation today, a bill that will take a major step forward in the fight against global warming. If there were ever an occasion when we had to unite as a country and as a world community to fight, it would be against the scourge of global warming which is taking place everywhere. You can't listen to the news without hearing about something global warming has affected. Yesterday on public radio there was a wonderful piece about Finland, how the glaciers are melting in Finland.

Under Senate rules, any Member has the power to object to a committee meeting after the first 2 hours after the Senate is in session. That is why we had to start the Senate late today, so that committee could go forward with its markup so they can hopefully report a bill to the floor by 2 o'clock this afternoon. Had we started at 9, they would have had to stop at 11 because we were told that Republicans would object to the hearing going forward.

I will be happy to yield.

That could be the case, Mr. President. We started at noon today because under the rules anyone can stop us from holding a hearing beyond that time and we were told that was what was going to happen and that is why we did this. It is very easy for people to say we didn't do it. Of course they didn't do it, but had the meeting started at 10 o'clock, they would have done it. We were told that is what they were going to do. It is easy now to come here after the fact and say we wouldn't have done that.

We can see from what is taking place in the committee, about the amendments being offered to try to stop this

bill from coming forward. The committee that is meeting has one Republican who is joining with us, John Warner from Virginia. Every other member of that committee, unless there is some sudden light one of them sees, is going to vote against that bill and they indicated they would do everything they could to stop the markup from being completed today.

I am very happy that now the Republicans are saying we would not have done that. The only way we can protect ourselves, after having been given a direct warning that was what was going to take place, was start the Senate late.

If this were the only case of the Republicans doing everything they could to slow us down, then maybe it would be something that would need to be looked at very closely. But this doesn't have to be looked at very closely. It is everything that we have tried to do since we took the majority, and a slim majority it is. As we all know, about a year ago Senator Johnson was stricken with a bleed in the brain. He almost died. So our majority on that day went from 51 to 50--50 to 49 was our majority, and we have struggled with that until Senator Johnson was able to return a couple of months ago.

During this period of time this year, the Republicans have done everything they could to slow down and many times stop what we were doing. Look at the numbers. We are now at 57 cloture motions we have had to file. As I said yesterday, this is filibusters on steroids. Within a few days, it will break the record for a Congress of having clotures filed, necessary clotures filed.

We were forced to begin this session late, as I have indicated, to give the committee a chance to begin its work. It is unfortunate we have reached this point of overt obstructionism. If this Republican blocking tactic is a sign of what is going to come--we have already seen it; it can't get worse than what it already is, I don't believe-- the remaining weeks are going to be interesting. We know we have been stopped from going forward on the farm bill. We tried everything we could to move forward on the farm bill. I even said you can have 10 amendments, we will have 5. They said no. I talked with Senator Harkin today. He said--I don't know the exact numbers--I think we can do it with 17 and 14, or something such as that. I said, if you can get a deal like that, take it. We want to move forward on legislation and we are having a difficult time doing that.

Global warming is something we should be joining together to work on, to solve the problem. The work done by Senators Lieberman and Warner is bipartisan in the true sense of the word. It is a way to address global warming in an important way. Nations throughout the world are demonstrating their commitment to reducing greenhouse emissions. As we speak, there is a conference taking place in Bali. We have 10,000 people there, worried about global warming. Australia, with the change of leadership they had there in recent elections within the past couple of weeks, has now signed the Kyoto protocols. Which is the only industrialized nation not to have signed those? This administration; this country.

President Bush would not acknowledge the words ``global warming'' until the past 6 months. He has now at least been able to say the words and is doing some futile things to help, and even those small gestures are welcome to this country and to the world.

I want to talk a little bit more about the farm bill. I have spoken to Senator Chambliss on a number of occasions. I have not sought him out. We have been on the floor and talked. I don't want to go around my friend, Senator McConnell, unless I tell him I am going to do that, but I have had conversations in front of everybody. He indicates he would like to do the farm bill. We want to do the farm bill. At this time there are 287 amendments pending on the farm bill, amendments dealing with driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, all kinds of other amendments that have nothing to do with the farm bill. As a result of some of my conversations with my friends on the other side of the aisle, it does not appear we can work anything out on the farm bill.

How much more reasonable can we be? I have said if 10 and 5 is not good, how about taking, as I have just said, Harkin and Chambliss, who supposedly, according to my conversation with Senator Harkin this morning, have now worked it out to less than 40 amendments. That will be fine, too. Let's move forward. I have even said, to show we are reasonable, have a couple of nongermane amendments. That is fine. We will be happy to take a shot at those. I don't know what they would be. I have been told--I think one of them may be dealing with driver's licenses. But we will be happy to do whatever needs to be done to help the American farmers and ranchers get some relief that they need.

We have also pending something that I think is pretty important. In addition to the farm bill, we have AMT. AMT is a buzzword for a tax proposal that was passed during a Republican administration, which had good intent when it started. Congress wanted to make sure and the President wanted to make sure that even people making a lot of money paid a little bit in taxes. But with inflation having risen its ugly head, as it does, it is affecting people no one anticipated would be affected. Right now, unless we change the AMT, people making between $75,000 and $500,000 would be hit with a tax they ordinarily would not get. The average tax, I understand, is less than $2,000. Somebody making $75,000 would get a very small tax; somebody making half a million dollars a year would be paying a larger tax.

That was not the intent of the tax. The vast majority of American people don't make 75,000 a year and they certainly don't make a half- million dollars a year.

But we want to try to change that. We want to put in a patch so it doesn't affect those people this year. We have tried everything that I know legislatively possible, that is reasonable, to take care of this. Right now, a cloture motion is ripening, our 57th, and that would be on whether we can proceed to legislate on the House-passed bill. The House-passed bill patches it, but it is all paid for. We Democrats believe that tax cuts and any new programs should be paid for. The House has passed a bill and sent it to us which does that. I have been told by my Republican colleagues that it is extremely doubtful we will get cloture on that. I hope we can get a few brave Republicans to say we want to legislate on this.

The President said we should do something to fix AMT. That being the case, why doesn't he place a call or have one of his staff call the Senate and say, Why don't you let them proceed on this? We can offer some amendments once it is there. We will try to be reasonable in what amendments we offer and they offer on this AMT fix. But I think we should at least have the opportunity to move forward. They are creating the worst of all worlds. They are going around saying we have to fix AMT, but they are not allowing us to legislate on it.

Under our Constitution, all revenue matters have to originate in the House. We have what the House wants to do. On this, I have said let's see what we can do. We will vote on the House version and we will go with the 60-vote margin. I am happy to do that. We will vote on what Senators Grassley and Baucus have reported out of the Finance Committee here in the Senate, and that is the AMT is not paid for. I don't agree with that, but that is what the committee has done so I accept that. Also as part of that package it has certain tax extenders that are paid for. I said, Let's vote on that. No.

Senator Lott, the Republican whip, said he wanted to eliminate AMT forever.

That is more than $1 trillion. But we are willing to vote on that. We have gotten no takers on that. I do not know how we can be more reasonable.

I do not want to get into the inner workings of the proposal made between Senator McConnell and myself because I do not think that would be appropriate to talk about, some of the things. I would be happy to do that if he wants to, but some of the other suggestions made--I do not want to do my negotiating out here on the Senate floor. But I think the suggestions they have made have been very unreasonable. I don't know how we can be more reasonable than what we have done.

Now, I would hope we can work something out on AMT. As I said to my distinguished friend, the Republican leader, today, if the President wants an AMT fix and the Republicans say they

want one, why can't we move forward on doing something? I do not understand why we could not do that.

One of the other alternatives I have not suggested, but maybe what we can do is have a vote on not even paying for it, which I disagree with, but if that would be the will of the Senate, fine, we could set something up in that regard. We could have those votes out of the way this afternoon. We would not have to do the cloture vote in the morning. And we would see what the will of the Senate is. The way it is going to be, I have been told that the Republicans have been given their marching orders, as happens all of the time around here, that they are not free agents, that they cannot vote to invoke cloture on this alternative minimum tax, which I think would be a shame.

As I told my friend, the senior Senator from Kentucky, we would like to finish the business of this body by 2 weeks from Friday. That is our goal. I hope we can do that. I hope we do not have to work--we are not going to work on Christmas, but I hope we do not have to work Christmas week. It is possible we may have to do that. We have a number of important issues around here. We have an energy bill that is going to be sent either today or tomorrow from the House. I spoke to the Speaker this morning. We have to complete the alternative minimum tax. I think it would be the right thing to do to see what we are going to do on the Presidents's wiretapping proposal, as to how we can make that a better piece of legislation. We have gotten something that is bipartisan that has come out of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee has met on a bipartisan basis. They have some things they want to change on that. But if we have to jump through all of the hoops and file cloture on that, that bill--the legislation that is now in force expires I believe on February 5. I think it would be good if we can complete that before we leave. There are certain other things we need to do before we leave. But it is a lot of work to do.

There is one minor little problem I did not talk about. We have to figure out some way to fund the Government for the rest of the year, either with some type of spending program to involve the Appropriations Committee or a last resort--something that both the Republican leader and I don't want--would be a continuing resolution which, in effect, eliminates the legislative branch of Government from being involved in what money is spent in the country for the next year.

Having said that, I would hope we can hold hands here a little bit in the next couple of weeks and see what we can get done: alternative minimum tax, farm bill, spending bills for our country, and if we really get fortunate, see if we can finish the FISA legislation, the wiretap legislation.

Mr. President, I think that is a wonderful gesture. I would accept that unanimous consent request that the committee be able to continue its deliberations today past 2 o'clock.

I appreciate that very much.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time Senator McConnell and I have used not be counted against the hour for morning business.

Mr. President, I have been in the minority; I understand how that works. But the record is very clear that on rare occasions did we oppose motions to proceed. We did but on rare occasions.

Keep in mind, as I have said, during this period of time--not even 1 year yet--records for filibusters will be broken for a 2-year session.

We have involved the minority. We did it on the minimum wage. We did it on ethics and lobbying reform. We have done it on U.S. attorneys independence. When we passed a supplemental appropriations bill, there was total involvement of House Republicans and Senate Republicans. That was good. We were able to finally get money for Katrina and wildfire relief. We have worked together on veterans legislation we have done. It has been a bipartisan move forward.

One of the rewarding things for me is the work we have been able to get out of the HELP Committee. Two diametrically opposed political minds, Kennedy and Enzi, have worked together and produced a lot of good things on which we have been able to move forward--mental health parity, the Head Start Program, a number of other items.

We have passed legislation that has paid for our troops. The only words of disagreement Senator McConnell and I have had on a private basis has been over the Energy bill; that was a misunderstanding. Those things happen, and I have forgotten about that. Other than that, we do our best to represent our caucus and our country. I have no personal animosity toward my friend.

On the Energy bill, I do want to say this before we leave that. To frame this issue, understand we are in the middle of a debate on the Energy bill. The issue was whether we would have a $32 billion tax on the Energy bill. There was objection from my Republican friends. Before votes were taken, one of my friends, a Democratic Senator, stood and said: It doesn't matter what you do here. We will take care of it in conference.

I stood and said: This will not take place in conference. We will not have this matter in conference.

The problem is, we have never been able to get to conference. We tried numerous times to have a conference on the Energy bill, and they wouldn't let us do it. So now we are going to get from the House tomorrow something they have done. Republicans have been involved, Republicans in the House and in the Senate. But, remember, in the House they have a little different procedure. Because the power is with the party that has the most votes, they can do most anything they want.

I have kept my word. There is nothing that has been added in conference. We haven't had a conference. I can't control Speaker Pelosi. I hope everybody understands that. She is a strong, independent woman. She runs the House with an iron hand. I support what she does, but no one needs to come and tell me I didn't keep my word. You check the record, which we have. I said this matter would not be added in conference, and it has not been added in conference. We haven't had a conference.

I have spoken to Senator Domenici. He is my friend, and I have great respect for him. He has served his State and the country well. Senator Domenici and I have worked as the two leaders of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations for a long time. He was either the chairman or I was. We get along very well. I talked to him last night. I explained to him the situation. I think he understands what took place. We have not had a conference. If that bill comes to us and those tax provisions are in it, we will take a look at it.

I do know this: As I have been told, the tax portion of that, if it is tied on to the Energy bill, would be $12 billion less than the one proposed in the Senate. I hope we can get some cooperation on the Energy bill. That would be great. It is something this country needs.

A couple of other things I want to say. On the farm bill, I say with the most genuine respect I can that my friend is not being fair in his description of why we don't move forward on the farm bill. Remember, the last bill

we had to move forward on was Amtrak, a bill that had been in the Republican leadership for years not moving forward. We decided we would move forward on it, and we passed it. What was the first amendment offered? A tax amendment. It had absolutely nothing to do with Amtrak. We can't have these bills in the waning weeks of this Congress, when people are waiting around for all kinds of things they want to do on Iraq and Afghanistan and the military and immigration.

I guess the Republicans think they have a good issue on immigration, to bash immigrants. They have all kinds of issues they want on immigration. They are waiting in the wings to offer these amendments. We can see that on the farm bill. A number of the 287 amendments filed have been dealing with immigration. We can't open the farm bill during the time we are trying to pass FISA, trying to pass the farm bill, AMT, do our spending bills.

How much more reasonable could I be in trying to shorten the time? I said: Republicans take 10; we will take 5. No. So Senator Harkin comes to me and Senator Chambliss. They have it down to less than 40. I said: Take the deal; we will agree to it. We don't even want time agreements on the amendments. How much more reasonable can we be? We can't be. Whatever we come up with, the Republicans would not agree to it because they do not want us to have a farm bill. So why don't they just acknowledge that. They are acknowledging it by their stopping us from having any kind of agreement.

I agree with the Republican leader, once we got on the bill, we could move forward with these amendments quickly. But that is where we are.

According to my friend--and I think these are the words he said--it is offensive to pay for these tax cuts. Let's follow this. It is offensive to pay for the tax cuts? That has been the Republican mantra for 7 years. And where are we? When President Bush took office, there was a $7 trillion surplus over 10 years. Where are we now? We are approaching a $10 trillion debt. Everything the Republicans have done with their spending has not been paid for, and their tax cuts have not been paid for.

As with the Clinton administration, we adopted pay-go. That is in our budget. If we have a program that is new, we have to pay for it. That doesn't sound unreasonable. That is what the American people want. If they buy a new car, a new refrigerator, they have to pay for it. There is only so much credit in the world. This Government has exceeded its credit limit. The credit card no longer works.

We also believe the tax cuts, which have given us red ink as far as you can see, created by the Republicans, should come to an end. If there are going to be further tax cuts, we should pay for them. That is the right thing to do. That is all we are saying with the AMT. Pay for these tax cuts. This is a tax cut. It should be paid for. I don't know what is offensive about that.

I would further say we are willing to meet the minority more than halfway--halfway, of course, but more than halfway. We have proven that as we have worked through legislation this year. It has been hard. It has been a slog. I understand how disappointed the Republicans are that we are in the majority. It was a surprise to a lot of people when last November we took the majority of the Senate. We won seats that no one expected us to win. But we are in the majority, no matter how slim. We have had some accomplishments, and we are proud of those. But more importantly, we believe in change. We believe we are agents of change for America. The Republicans are agents of the status quo. The American people will have to judge whom they want to support. Do they want to support those who want to keep things the way they are in Iraq and every other bad situation we find ourselves in as a country or do they want to move forward with us and work for change? That is where we are.

I think we are on the right side. I hope during these next couple of weeks we can work together and do some good things for the country. We are willing to go more than halfway. Take AMT, for example. Let's go over that again. I have tried everything I can, offering unanimous consent requests which have been objected to. Vote on the House bill. No. Vote on what we have in the Senate. No. Vote on what Senator Lott wants: just to repeal it and have another trillion dollars of red ink. No. Not willing to do that.

So today I said: OK, let's vote on not even paying for it. How about that? I have heard no clamor from the Republicans, yes, that sounds like a good idea. What more could we do?

The word is that there are people--and how big the number is we don't know, but we know in the Senate it doesn't take a big majority to cause problems--there are many Republican Senators who don't want us to put the patch for AMT so they can go around, as I told Senator McConnell this morning, pointing fingers at each other about whose fault it is that these people in America with $75,000 to $500,000 in income are going to get a tax increase. How much more reasonable could we be? Have we gone more than halfway? The answer is obviously yes. We want to legislate. We do not want to block things from happening.

If someone can show me how I am unreasonable with my proposal on AMT, I would be happy to sit down and talk to them. I don't know how I could be more reasonable.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be terminated.

Madam President, it is my understanding there is a motion to proceed that is now before the Senate. I ask to withdraw it.

What now is the pending business?

Madam President, it is my understanding there is a cloture motion on the Harkin substitute amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to calendar No. 487, H.R. 3996--I am happy to see my friend, the distinguished Senator from Georgia on the floor. I believe my friend from Georgia knows how hard I have tried to get some way to proceed forward on this farm bill. We don't have farms in Nevada. We do have some. We have lots of ranches. As I have said on the floor before, the one crop we are very proud of is onions. We are the largest white onion producer in the world--in the United States--I am sorry. And in Lyon County, we produce lots of stuff: onions, garlic, and in Mason Valley, lots and lots of alfalfa. The greenbelts of Nevada are shrinking because of the population growth we have. But we still have ranches--ranches that were owned by Bing Crosby--I mean that were famous ranches. They still are. But even they are being hit by the population growth.

We are very proud of our ranching community. There are things in this farm bill that have direct impact on my constituency in the State of Nevada. That is one reason I have tried everything I know to move to this bill.

We have tried moving forward amendment by amendment. The Dorgan amendment under the bill is still pending. That is a bipartisan amendment. I have suggested let's have X number of amendments, and finally I got so desperate I said let's have the Republicans have 10 amendments and we will have 5. Still no takers on that. We heard from Senator Harkin today who said: Senator Chambliss and I now have the amendments down to less than 40. I said: Oh, good. Let's enter into an agreement that we will have 40 amendments, or whatever it is, and we will proceed to work on those. No time agreements. No deal.

The only agreement we have had on this bill is we have locked in a finite number of amendments. But it is 287 amendments--287 amendments-- with issues that are so pertinent to the farm bill, like immigrants' driver's licenses, just for beginners. There have been some suggestions: Well, why don't you just move to the bill. We are in the waning days of this year, and we have to proceed and complete a number of issues. But I was a little bit lax. I said: Well, maybe we are working here, trying to work together on things, and the Amtrak bill hasn't been done for 5 or 6 years and people are crying for something to be done about this. We have one Republican Senator for years who has tried to kill Amtrak. He came very close to it a few times and we always were able to survive. So this year, I said let's move to it. On a bipartisan basis we had people who wanted to do that bill. We opened it up. What is the first amendment? A tax measure. A tax measure. We finally got that bill passed. But we can't on this farm bill open it up.

I have heard the distinguished Republican leader come forward and say: Well, that is what we have done in the past. I have been through this before, but let me repeat for everyone: The average number of nongermane amendments on farm bills has been one--one per bill--one. In my efforts to be fair and to move forward, I said, OK, on the 10 amendments the Republicans want to do on this bill, we will have two of them nongermane. I didn't ask what they would be. There was no taking of that. So I have done literally everything I can do.

The farming and ranching community of this country, they know why we are not moving forward on the farm bill. They know what is going on: The Republicans do not want to move on the farm bill. Maybe they don't care about it. Maybe they think it would be some kind of a victory for Democrats who are in the majority in the Senate--not much of a majority, but we are in the majority. I don't understand what this is all about. But Friday morning we are going to have a cloture vote again. Is that so unreasonable that if people believe in the farm bill, then they would still have 30 hours to offer amendments relating to the farm bill? They would have to be germane amendments. But what would be wrong with that?

We have had one cloture motion. It has been defeated. We have waited weeks now. We have offered all kinds of suggestions to move forward. We have not heard a single proposal back from the Republicans other than to say: Well, open it up for amendments. Open it up for amendments so we can ask that we initiate a flat tax, or open it up to an amendment that we push forward on Bush's tax cuts that have put this country into such a terrible hole financially. That is what the plan is, and we are not going to be a part of that plan. We want to do a farm bill. We want to do it fairly and reasonably.

While we are talking about schedule, I have spoken to the Speaker several times today and she is going to complete either today or tomorrow an energy bill. That being the case, that will come here as a message from the House and we will have a cloture vote on that. The way things now are, if it gets here tomorrow, we will file a cloture motion on that and we will have a vote on that Saturday. So everyone should know that unless there is an agreement to change that, we will have a vote on Saturday. We have Senators leaving for Bali and Senators wanting to go to some celebration at Pearl Harbor, and a lot of other places people want to go. But the country has a lot of business that needs to be attempted to be completed, and we are going to do that. I hope we can work together to solve some of these issues.

But to show the futility of our trying to progress, take, for example, the AMT, this tax proposal which was passed by a former Republican administration. Unless we place a so-called

patch on it, 20 million people or so will have an added tax. Some who make as much as $75,000 to $500,000 will be affected by this legislation if we don't do something to patch it. I have done everything I can except turn a back flip off of the Presiding Officer's chair to see if we can figure out a way to move forward on AMT. I ask: How could we be more reasonable than what we have suggested?

The House has passed a bill. It is over here. I said: Let's vote on that by unanimous consent. Let's vote on it. In addition to voting on that, let's vote on Senator Lott's proposal. Senator Lott's proposal is to do away with the AMT. The only problem with that is it would cost about $1 trillion, but we are willing to vote on it. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have a measure out of the Finance Committee that says we are going to have tax incentives, which people believe in, and they are all paid for. With that is an AMT that is not paid for. Nope, we can't do that. I said: Well, I have a new idea. Let's have a vote and not pay for it. Nope, can't do that. So if there were ever a book on being reasonable, I hope they include a paragraph or two about what we have tried to do the last few days. We have tried to be reasonable.

Think about this: What else could we agree to do on AMT? They don't want to vote on it if it is paid for. They don't want a vote if it is half paid for, they don't want a vote if it is repealed, and they don't want a vote if it is not paid for. I don't know what other iterations of this anyone could come up with, but I think I have covered the basics. We have been told by the Republicans no vote on any of them.

If there is a closure of this congressional session and the AMT hasn't passed, it can be directed where most everything is directed-- with the Republicans marching in lockstep with the White House. The Republicans. If there is no AMT patch, it is the fault of the Republicans. They won't let us vote on anything.

So I say through the Chair to the distinguished Senator and my friend from Georgia: Do you know how we can complete the farm bill?

Mr. President, Senator Harkin told me today Senator Chambliss and he had agreed to about 40 amendments; is that valid?

See, Mr. President, this is the problem we have all the time. The Chairman, Senator Harkin, said Senator Chambliss and he had agreed to have less than 40 amendments. I said, fine. But it is always this rope-a-dope--no, it is not 40; we are still working on it. Of the 287, half of those are gone. And I guess half of that would be 143. We are down on the Republican side. Maybe they can get rid of two-thirds of them.

There is always some reason we cannot go to the bill. It is very easy to say if we had had an open process, we could have been to conference. That is foolishness. I repeat, we know what farm bills are. It takes a while to work through them. But in recent history, we have averaged one nonrelevant amendment per farm bill. I am willing to take nonrelevant amendments, but no one will tell us what they will agree to. I agreed to 10, 5, and then Senator Harkin said we can have 40. I said sign them up, let's do 40.

The ranking member of the committee says: Well, we are still working on it. That is what we have had. I want all ranching and farming families to hear what is going on here, which has gone on for weeks. Whether the purpose is to stop Democrats from passing a farm bill, I don't know. Maybe the ranking member simply doesn't want a bill. There may be reasons for that. We had a bipartisan bill. Twenty percent of the Senate voted on the bill. Twenty-one Members of the Senate are members of the Agriculture Committee, and they voted to report the bill out here. But there has been no movement on it. Cloture is ripening now, and we will move forward.

To show what is going on, we have filed cloture on AMT, the bill that came from the House. We filed cloture on the farm bill; we are going to file cloture tomorrow on the Energy bill. Everything we do, we have to procedurally go through all of these hoops because the Republicans are on steroids as it relates to filibusters. They are going to break all records. They will break a 2-year record this year. I think the American people are seeing what is going on.

The Republicans are demanding the status quo, in spite of our accomplishments. We have had a lot of accomplishments, Mr. President. We can run through the list, but we need not do that. But there have been large, significant, and important accomplishments. Accomplishments are not enough. We believe in changing the status quo. We believe in the agents of change. They are agents of keeping things the way they are.

The American people want things changed, and we want to be part of that change. We hope we will be joined by our Republican colleagues to change a few things. Let's have a new farm bill. Let's not have to extend the farm bill

that is now in existence. Let's try to do something with AMT, rather than walk out of here and have people saying it is too bad the Democrats didn't do AMT.

I have said that I defy anybody to come up with a way to do AMT other than the way I have suggested: Vote on the House bill, which is fully paid for; do the Lott proposal, which eliminates it and costs a trillion dollars; do what Senators Grassley and Baucus reported, that we pay for the extenders, not for the AMT. This morning I suggested don't pay for it. But, no. Silence.

I am disappointed but not surprised at how we have been treated today.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Georgia talking about his experience here. But I have a little bit of experience, too. I have been here a quarter century. I know how farm bills work. Anybody can look at the record. Farm bills have been handled the way I have talked about them being handled.

If the Senator from Georgia so likes this bill that he voted for, what would be wrong with voting cloture with us and allowing people who have germane amendments to the farm bill to offer them? What in the world is wrong with that? I say, respectfully, that the Senator is speaking out of both sides of his mouth when he is saying he supports this bill, when he is not willing to vote for cloture and accept germane amendments. He wants some other process so they can deal with driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other issues that have nothing to do with the farm bill. They are trying to send a message. I have said we will accept x number of amendments, and I spoke to Senator Harkin and he said they worked on this today. I thought he had spoken to the Senator from Georgia. Maybe it was staff driven, but he said they agreed to 40 amendments. I said sign the deal up. Or let's agree to 50 amendments. But we cannot get any agreement. We are in a rope-a- dope, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever time the distinguished Republican leader and I take today not be used against the morning business hour.

Mr. President, the Senate will conduct morning business for an hour with Republicans controlling the first half, the majority controlling the final portion. Following this period of morning business, the Senate will resume debate on the Peru trade bill. The limit on debate this morning will be about 90 minutes. Once this time is used, the Senate will recess until 2:15 this afternoon, and at that time there will be a vote on passage of the Peru trade bill.

Mr. President, during my time in public office, I have had the opportunity to serve with many good men and women. During my time serving in Congress, I have had the opportunity to make a friendship with Trent Lott.

Senator Daschle gave me the freedom, during the 6 years I was assistant leader and he was the leader, to spend all my time on the Senate floor, and I did that. Senator Daschle did other things, but he trusted me. I hope I did the right thing--I sure tried to do that all the time I worked with him--but I lived on the floor of the Senate.

During much of that time Trent Lott was the Republican leader, and we worked together over those years, I think, in a way that speaks well of our country. We made ``deals.'' Legislation is the art of compromise, consensus building. Even though Trent Lott is certainly a true conservative, we were able, in his pragmatic fashion, to work things out.

Trent has an interesting background. He was born in Mississippi. His family settled in a place called Pascagoula. His father was a pipefitter. His mother taught school. She was an elementary school teacher. The public school that Senator Lott attended now bears his name. He received a degree from the University of Mississippi and also got his law degree from the same institution. That is a wonderful community, Oxford, MS. I have had an opportunity to spend a little bit of time there. There is a beautiful community square. It is like I envision the South as it used to be.

He married a beautiful woman, Tricia--Tricia Thompson Lott. They were college sweethearts. My wife, who is a shy woman--always has been--has worked with Tricia on a number of different issues and has been so enamored of her, with what a wonderful woman Tricia is. She is a hard worker. Whenever projects are involved, she does more than her share.

They have two children, Chet and Tyler. They have four grandchildren.

Trent has been in Congress 34 years. He is the only person in the history of this country who has served as both the House and the Senate whip. He has been a champion for Mississippi, as we all know, but he has also been an important instrument in the Senate accomplishing what it has during the time he was here. I am disappointed that Senator Lott is going to be leaving the Senate, and I will miss him. I have been impressed with his ability to get things done. Other than John Breaux and Trent Lott, there are no two people able to accomplish as much as they did. John Breaux was a dealmaker, and the place he always went, as a Democrat, to start his deal, was with Trent Lott. They developed a friendship that lasts to this day. But as a result of their ability to work together on different sides of the aisle, we were able to accomplish a great deal. During the Clinton years, much of what Senator Breaux was able to accomplish for President Clinton was as a result of his relationship with Senator Lott.

There is no need for me to dwell on my friendship with Senator Lott other than to say he is my friend, I wish him well, and certainly I wish Tricia and Trent and their family the very best. They deserve it.

Mr. President, the Senate will finish consideration of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement today, with a vote this afternoon. Before getting into the merits of the FTA, I wanted to take a moment to discuss a broader issue. It is very unfortunate that the Bush administration's only policy towards Latin America has been to negotiate free trade agreements.

I just returned from leading a bipartisan delegation to Latin America and last year I headed a similar delegation to different Latin American countries, including Peru. What we heard repeatedly there in almost every country we visited was that the Bush administration had neglected the region.

And, in fact, they are right. We have cut development assistance, eliminated programs, and repeatedly overlooked our neighbors to the south. In the place of a robust and comprehensive policy of engagement, exchange, aid, and a variety of trade tools, we have a simplistic, singular policy of free trade agreements.

The Bush administration's narrow approach has been harmful in many ways. We have left a vacuum of diplomacy and engagement in many areas, which has allowed unconstructive forces space to expand influence. And our free trade strategy has been very divisive in many of the countries--a foreign policy that divides rather than unites.

I support engagement with Latin America; I strongly support being a better neighbor, but I do not support this narrow policy tool that the Bush administration has fixated on.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first agreement that incorporates the new provisions on labor rights, the environment, and access to medicines from the May 10 agreement with Speaker Pelosi, Congressmen Rangel and Levin, and Chairman Baucus.

These changes are significant. For the first time ever a trade agreement will include an enforceable obligation for each country to respect core, internationally recognized labor standards.

I hope that this new provision will have a dramatic impact over time.

If they are faithfully enforced, they can help to reduce inequality and establish broader middle classes in the developing countries with which we have free trade agreements. I applaud these and other changes that were part of that May 10 agreement.

While the May 10 agreement is very important, I have generally opposed free trade agreements for several reasons.

First and foremost, I think that for many years now, U.S. trade policy has been one dimensional--we have had one agreement after another, yet so many other aspects of economic policy have been absolutely neglected.

While we have approved new FTAs with 12 different countries since 2001, we still do not have an adequate trade adjustment assistance program. Studies show that those workers who lose their job due to trade on average see a substantial cut in wages in their next job. We need to do a better job of ensuring that these workers do not get left behind before we move forward with more and more agreements.

While we have approved all of those new FTAs, the Bush administration has absolutely fallen down on the job when it comes to enforcement of trade agreements. The Clinton administration brought on average 11 cases per year against foreign trade barriers at the WTO. The Bush administration has brought only a few more than 11 cases total over the last 7 years. The Clinton administration was very aggressive in using other tools of trade policy to fight against unfair trade and unjustifiable trade barriers. The Bush administration has taken numerous measures to weaken U.S. fair trade laws. The Bush administration has been impotent in responding to China's currency manipulation. The continued inaction on this critical issue has led to a situation that could destabilize global financial markets and economic prospects. While the May 10 agreement includes important new labor provisions, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not enforce them.

It is hard for me to see how I can go home and tell my constituents that I want to support more and more trade agreements when the present administration has refused to aggressively support U.S. rights under our current trade agreements.

Finally, I remain concerned that U.S. free trade agreements have hurt many American workers and unwittingly caused problems in some of our free trade partners. The U.S. has lost about 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001. Many of these jobs have gone overseas, replaced by imports from low-wage countries.

These lost jobs are offset by lower prices, no doubt. But a lost job has a more profound impact than our statistics account for. A lost job means a strain on a family. Large concentrations of lost jobs mean strains on communities and local and State governments.

Also, as we saw in Mexico after NAFTA, these FTAs can be harmful to communities in our trading partners. More than a million Mexican farmers lost their land and livelihood after NAFTA. NAFTA was supposed to end illegal immigration to the U.S.; instead by pushing poor rural farmers off their land, it helped cause an explosion of illegal immigration.

So I recognize that this FTA reflects major improvements from the previous model. But, I still see many holes in U.S. trade policy that need to be filled. So, reluctantly, I oppose the agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the American people are about to see what the Democrats have tried to do all year and what we have been prevented from doing all year because of the obstructionism of the Republicans.

President Bush is out giving speeches that we have to do AMT. We have to take care of that. He is giving speeches all over the country. He gives press conferences talking about why we aren't doing AMT. Everybody watch. Here is why we aren't doing AMT. They do not want us to do it. They want, at the end of the year, to say: Look, the Democrats are not doing AMT. Everyone should understand we are not doing it because the Republicans, all 49 of them, backed by President Bush, don't want us to do it.

Mr. President, we have offered them a proposal. We will have a vote with a 60-vote margin on them all--on the bill the House has passed. The bill has passed. The bill passed by the House fully funds AMT. They won't let us vote on that. So I say: OK, let's vote on Senator Lott's proposal, which just eliminates AMT. And then I say: Let's work on the proposal we have from the Finance Committee that has come from Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley which has some extenders in it that we need to complete this year and then doesn't pay for the AMT. The Republicans don't want the AMT paid for. How much more fair could we be? We are giving them a vote on virtually everything dealing with AMT. But, no, they won't do that. It is the way it has been going all year long. We can't do the farm bill. We can't do anything around here, Mr. President. That is why we have had to file cloture 56 times. They have objected even to bills they agree with just to eat up time around here.

So I am not going to ask consent to move, as we have previously. I gave the Republican leader a proposal earlier today, as I have in the past, to do just as I have outlined, covering every possible facet of AMT--60 votes on all of them. But, no, no votes on any of them. So now I am left with no alternative but to file cloture on the only measure dealing with AMT that is now before this body.

For the life of me, I don't understand what they are trying to accomplish. What I have heard recently, in the last hour or so, is that now what they want to do is--we have certain tax provisions that are expiring in 2011--they want to vote on those. Now, that is 3 or 4 years away, and we have something that is expiring in a matter of weeks. How do those things tie together? They do not.

This is an effort to thwart the progress of our slim majority, 51 to 49. The Republicans want to go around saying the Democrats aren't doing the work of this country. Well, we have a long list of accomplishments we are very proud of, but also the American people understand that we are agents of change and the Republicans are agents of the status quo. That is what this is all about. They want things to stay the way they have been, and we want to change things, and not only in Iraq. We don't have another longstanding debate on that. We want to change the course in Iraq, and we want to change course in the way this country has been headed for the last 7 years--into the economic doldrums. And here today, what we want to do is finish a part of what we believe is an obligation to this country, and that is to make sure that when the first of the year rolls around, 19 million Americans don't have a tax increase. Everyone within the sound of my voice should understand, if that comes to be, it can go to 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue because that is what President Bush--he is the man who is pulling the strings on the 49 puppets he has here in the Senate. That is too bad for the country.

I move to proceed to H.R. 3996. There is a cloture motion at the desk. I ask the clerk to report it.

Cloture Motion

No, I said I wouldn't do that. I am sorry if there was some confusion. I said I was not going to do that. I had been told by the staff that there would be an objection, so I indicated I was not going to do that. I apologize to my friend.

Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills.