Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) would have voted ``aye.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 606.

Mr. President, this amendment would repeal the 1993 AMT tax increase that generally increased the AMT rates from 24 percent to a two-tiered 26 and 28 percent. This is one last opportunity on this resolution to correct the mistake we made in 1993, which began in 1969 with the so-called alternative minimum tax. This was the guarantee that the wealthy paid their fair share, ostensibly, but it has morphed into a terrible tax on the middle class. This is not a full repeal like the earlier amendment. This is the one that actually addresses the problem we created in 1993, the creeping rate increase that went from 24 to 26 percent. I urge colleagues to take this action to effectively deal with the AMT problem.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

the following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I have not had a whole lot to say in the Senate about the process, the various proposals, and even the substance of the Iraq resolutions. But it obviously is a very troublesome issue for me.

One of my concerns is the process. How bad could we possibly look as an institution? We can't come to an agreement on how to have a full debate and votes. Everybody says we will agree to this but not that, and it goes back and forth. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we cannot have some clear identification of some different approaches to this issue and have debate and vote on them.

The majority leader has to understand he cannot dictate what amendments the Republicans are going to offer and the substance of those amendments or resolutions, if you will, any more than we can dictate that to the Democrats. It has to be a fair process. I think that can be worked out. I know our leaders are talking--and I wish them the best--so that we can have debate and a vote on different approaches and move on to other issues.

My second problem is, how many iterations is this going to go through? I remind my colleagues that the election is over. It was last year. All we have been doing in the Senate is political partisan positioning, all sound and fury, achieving nothing. What is the score in the Senate? 0 to 0. Democrats haven't gotten anything done. Not one bill of any substance that we have passed has been signed into law, except a continuing resolution, which we acknowledged had to be done to keep the Government operating and, frankly, because we didn't do our work like we should have on that issue last year. That is all. It is all about positioning.

There is one other score that is the worst of all: Democrats, 0; Republicans, 0; American people, 0. We have to figure out a way to quit finding what we can disagree about and find some things we can work together on for the good of the people.

Regarding this Iraq issue, on the one hand, we say we want to succeed. On the other hand, you have the out-of-Iraq caucus saying get out of there, set deadlines, and withdraw the troops. We say we are giving General Petraeus our total confidence with a unanimous approval in confirmation. He is there trying to get the violence calmed down and to do a better job and get an opportunity for their Government to do what it needs to do, have economic development. So while we are saying: Congratulations, we all vote for you and wish you will succeed, we are over here doing things that could potentially undermine his ability to get them done.

You might say: Oh, well, that is not really what is at stake with the Iraq resolutions. Remember, to show you what positioning is going on, today, let's say we come to the conclusion that we are going to have two or three different votes and we will finish at some point this afternoon on the latest iteration of the Reid positions and we will move on to the budget. Well, the problem with that is we have already been told this will be back on the supplemental appropriations--the emergency appropriations to fund the needs of our men and women in uniform. We are being told: By the way, we are going to put this restrictive language on the funding resolution. So we are going to revisit this issue the week after next.

I think what we are doing is the worst of all worlds. We have had nonbinding resolutions to express the sense of the Senate, which is a misnomer in itself. Then, now we finally come to what would be statutory language in a joint resolution by Senator Reid, which has deadlines and begins a process of Congress micromanaging a war.

We have tried it before and it didn't work, or it led to what some people consider a disaster. For us to state some opinions is one thing, but it has gone beyond that now. This is going to have an effect. I don't think there is a lot of language or a lot we can do that can positively affect what is going on in Iraq right now, but there is a lot we can do that will negatively affect it.

So I think to start setting deadlines and having the Congress trying to micromanage what is going on in Baghdad--we cannot even manage the process. How are we going to manage a war? Even the New York Times--and I don't usually quote them because most of the time I disagree with everything they have to say--is raising questions about the different resolutions and what would be the effect of what we are trying to do in the Congress about Iraq.

The Economist, I think the world's most respected magazine, said there is actually progress being made. General Petraeus is doing some things that have made a difference. Maliki and the Government there are beginning to make some decisions. We say meet your benchmarks, but as progress is being made, we say: If you don't do it like we have outlined, we are going to begin to just withdraw.

Mr. President, I wish my colleagues--all of us on both sides of the aisle--would think seriously about what we are doing in Iraq.

Then also, of course, we are going to go to the budget resolution next week. I have been through a lot of budget battles. Again, we are going to fuss and we are going to fight and we are going to have lots of amendments and we will have a vote-arama, which is the worst exhibition imaginable. We will vote on

25 amendments in a row probably every 3 minutes and have no idea what we are voting on. We will finish it up, and what effect does it have? None. The President doesn't sign it. We treat our own budgets about the same as we treat the President's budgets: We ignore them. We trash them a while and then throw them out in the street and do what we want to do.

I do think the budget is going to be the beginning of an opportunity for the American people to have buyer's remorse about what they have done with the Congress. This is going to be sort of a typical budget debate. The headline again in the New York Times is: ``Senate Democrats offer spending plan but no way to pay for it.''

I think in theory you can say Republicans always want to cut taxes, and they don't want to worry a whole lot about the effect that has on the deficit, although I believe if we cut taxes in the right way, we get more revenue.

I also think we all better take a look at what has been the effects of our tax policy and our budgets on the economy. The economy is good. Do we have some problems in the energy area and health care? Yes. We ought to do something about those issues. But overall, we have had economic growth. Revenues are pouring in.

So what is the budget I am looking at going to do? I think Senator Conrad is a very serious chairman of the Budget Committee. I know he would like to do more than he is going to be able to do. I know he would like to do entitlement reform. We know it has to come. We will not belly up to that bar this year or next year. Maybe something will occur and we will do it in 2009.

This is going to be a budget where there is more domestic spending, less defense spending, and tax increases. That is what is going to happen. That is what always happens. We may not be a whole lot more responsible with a Republican budget, but this is your basic Democratic budget, and we are going to see it next week. We are going to describe it as one of smoke and mirrors. It assumes the tax cuts are going to be extended into the future, but it doesn't come up with any way to pay for them. Under the new rules, we are going to have pay-fors. If you increase spending, you are going to have to pay for it, or if you have tax cuts, you are going to have to pay for them, but it doesn't say how that is going to occur.

I do think we are at a critical juncture. We have gone through the opening, trying to get used to how we run the institution with new management. We haven't done it well. I am going to mark it off as the early phases of a new Congress and feeling our way forward. But when we get through positioning, I hope we are going to find a way to do some things together. We should have immigration reform. We need it. I know ``comprehensive immigration reform'' has gotten to be a dirty word, but I do think we have to deal with it in a broad way. It has to deal with legal immigration, illegal immigration, and we are going to have to have a temporary worker program. We have to find some way for people to have a pathway to citizenship.

We have to address health care in America. Health care has become so expensive and, in many cases, not accessible. Why can't we work together on that issue?

Energy--the energy situation in America is a national security risk and an economic risk. Some people say: Oh, we can fix it by raising mileage standards for automobiles, CAFE standards. Some of us--I am in that group--think we don't have to produce less or get along with not having more oil and gas and nuclear power and everything else. I think we can have more of everything. Let's see if we can't find a way to come together and maybe do both in a responsible way.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about these issues this morning. I hope we can come to an agreement on how to proceed on Iraq, and I hope we can finish it by sundown tonight and then move on to the obligatory vote on the budget, which will be a waste of time, next week, and then maybe we can get serious about what we do in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Will the Senator yield? Is it too late to object to the Senator's amendment?

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

Well, Mr. President, here is one of my speeches I guess I am going to have to make every fortnight, but it is 6:20--it is on Thursday--and here we stand or mostly sit or hide and will not act on important amendments on this legislation because our colleagues will not come to agreement on some provision or another in the managers' package or some amendment.

I say to my colleagues, this is no way to legislate. If you have a problem, get over here and state it. If you have an objection, have the courage to stand up--be the man or the woman--and express your objection.

This is outrageous, and I am not blaming our leadership. It is not them. It is us. This whole bill has been a curiosity to me because I thought we were making good progress, and then we were not, and then I thought we were going to again, and now we are not.

So I tell you--it is not my authority to do so--but if I had the ability to wave a wand, I would say we are going to vote. If you don't like it, vote against it, but you are not stopping these amendments.

So I urge everybody involved--whether it is my colleagues on this side of the aisle or the other side--come over here and let's get going because we look pathetic when we do this sort of thing. It is just outrageous. We have votes we could take. We have two judges. Let's vote. Let's have a vote on the judges, and it will give us a chance to explain to our colleagues what the problem is with these other amendments.

So I plead with somebody: Pull the trigger. Let's have a vote. Then let's get some results around here. I am telling you, we all look bad. Did we not hear the American people? They want us to produce results. I have looked at these amendments. There is nothing wrong with any of these amendments. It is going to be injurious to the institution, to the Republicans and the Democrats. And, yes, I admit, I am outraged because I want to go home and be with my wife, have supper, and live a normal life. I would suggest some of our other colleagues do that. Maybe we could get a little more done around here and not look so bad in the process.

I want to say to the managers of the bill, I love them both, and I think they have been doing the very best they can. They are ready to go. So it is a disservice to Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, who have been managing this bill, which, yes, has problems, but we are never going to get them resolved, never going to get to a reasonable conclusion without actually having some votes.

When was the last time we had a vote around here? I can't even remember. Yesterday?

So Senator Lieberman, I know you would like to get the show on the road. I support anything you want to do. If you want to just move the previous question, I am for that, or any other motion you want to make that would get the process started. A motion to table--that would be good. We could get going.

I know it is abnormal for Senators.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Connecticut for their work. I admire them both so much.

Can I inquire, Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Would a motion to move the previous question be a proper way to proceed?

Would a motion to table be in order, Mr. President?

It is not my prerogative, but I am threatening it.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``nay.''