[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10592-S10596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SORRY FATE OF TAX EXTENDERS IN ``TRAILER'' PACKAGE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we've hit the end of the road on trying 
to pass the trailer bill separately. It is pretty clear we won't get a 
bill to the President's desk before we recess for the upcoming mid-term 
elections.
  From my perspective the right thing to do is to pass legislation that 
resolves two important tax policy issues. The issues are a permanent 
death tax relief package and the trailer bill which contains a 
retroactive extension of several tax relief provisions. Those 
provisions expired on December 31, 2005. That is the right date--
December 31, 2005. Taxpayers have lived with uncertainty on these 
bipartisan, widely-supported provisions for almost 9 months or three-
quarters of a year.
  How did we get here? How come we can't get a permanent death tax 
relief deal when it is clear that more than 60 Senators are on record 
in support of repeal or significant relief? How come we can't get a 
resolution of expired tax provisions that are overwhelmingly supported 
in both the House and Senate? This uncertainty is solely the 
responsibility of the leadership of both

[[Page S10593]]

parties here in the United States Senate.
  We are stuck on death tax because the Democratic leadership won't let 
enough Democratic Senators vote their conscience. It's all because of 
political calculations. That's a shame. Family farmers and small 
business owners deserve an answer to the uncertainty posed by the death 
tax. My answer would be to repeal the death tax. Repeal isn't in the 
cards. We have had votes to prove it. Unfortunately, the political 
proof that repeal wasn't in the cards didn't materialize until the 
cloture vote we had back in June.
  The American people deserve a final and definitive answer on death 
tax relief. As we go home, they have only to look to the Senate 
Democratic leadership and ask why the Senate was not permitted to work 
its will on this issue.
  I want to tell the rightfully disappointed family farmers and small 
business folks that we will resolve the death tax problem. It should 
have been resolved by now. And, it will be resolved in a way that 
focuses on family farms and small businesses. I pledge to family 
farmers and small business folks, especially those in my home state of 
Iowa, that I will devote my energy and resources, as chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee, to resolving this problem.
  Let's turn to the trailer bill. It's an odd name for a bill. The bill 
has been held up for so long some folks have probably forgotten the 
basis of the nickname. I will remind you. It's a trailer bill because 
it covers tax provisions that dropped out of the tax relief 
reconciliation conference agreement. That conference agreement included 
the cornerstones of both the House and Senate bills. The cornerstone of 
the House bill was a 2-year extension of the lower rates on capital 
gains and dividends. The cornerstone of the Senate bill was an 
extension of the hold-harmless on the alternative minimum tax--``AMT''. 
I was pleased we covered the cornerstones of both bills. We only had 
revenue room to cover the cornerstones. The other provisions, 
principally the tax extenders, were decided to travel in a bill to 
follow or ``trail.'' Hence the name trailer bill.
  The trailer bill took several weeks of intense negotiations. The 
negotiators were Chairman Thomas for the House and Senator Baucus and 
me for the Senate. They were tough negotiations, but they produced a 
fair agreement. That agreement was included in the trailer piece of the 
trifecta. The House ratified Chairman Thomas's agreement when it passed 
the trifecta.
  In my view, the agreement is closed. No items should be subtracted. 
No items should be added. A deal is a deal. Let me repeat that. A deal 
is a deal. Changes should only occur if all the parties to the 
agreement consent. We don't have another 5 to 6 weeks to re-negotiate 
the trailer bill.
  In getting to that agreement, I pushed hard for several Senate issues 
to be resolved. I'm referring to items other than the basic 2-year 
extension of provisions that expired on December 31, 2005. Let me go 
through a few of those items.
  First off, there is the abandoned mines reclamation--AML--fund 
proposal. Senators Santorum, Byrd, and Rockefeller took the lead in 
this plan. Chairman Enzi did the heavy lifting.
  Secondly, there is a package of added incentives to enhance Hurricane 
Katrina rebuilding efforts. Senator Lott took the lead on this package, 
along with the support of Senators Vitter, and Landrieu.
  Third, there are tax relief incentives for mine safety. Senators 
Byrd, Santorum, and Rockefeller argued for these important provisions.
  Fourth, there is an expansion of the veterans mortgage bonds program. 
This is a program that the states use to provide veterans who return 
from combat with low-interest loans so that they can buy their families 
a home. Senators DeWine and Smith advanced these provisions.
  Fifth, there is a proposal to provide a deduction for private 
mortgage insurance--PMI--for low-income home purchasers. Senators 
Lincoln and Smith worked hard to secure these provisions.
  Sixth, there is a proposal to level the playing field between 
individual and corporate timber capital gains transactions. This 
proposal will insure that timber-growing areas and related mill towns 
will not be disadvantaged if the timber company is a corporation. Most, 
not all, of the Senators from the timber growing states in the Pacific 
Northwest and southeast had an interest in this provision.
  These are a few of the proposals that were negotiated and resolved in 
the trailer package. In my role as Finance Committee chairman, I 
protected these Senate positions. I expect our Senate Leadership to 
back me as we proceed. I am protecting Senators and Senate positions, 
so you would think they would automatically back me. To reiterate, a 
deal is a deal. The House has affirmed the deal with its vote on the 
trifecta. There should be no backsliding on the deal.
  Now, we haven't been able to move a separate trailer bill because the 
Republican Leadership wants to use the trailer as a ``sweetener'' for 
votes for death tax relief at some future point. I have been pushing 
for a separate bill for a lot of reasons. Some Republican colleagues 
have complained about my efforts, using terms like ``whining'' to 
describe my persistence.
  Why push so hard for a separate bill, some have asked. There are 
three key reasons. The first is the 19 million taxpayers who may face 
compliance problems because of incomplete IRS forms. The second reason 
is the hundreds of thousands of business taxpayers who have been in 
limbo waiting for final approval of measures like the research and 
development tax credit. Third, I'm virtually certain that the 
leadership's strategy of trying to use unrelated ``sweeteners'' to turn 
Democratic votes for a death tax deal will continue to fail.
  Let's go through these reasons, one-by-one.
  First, take a look at the Finance Committee website. On September 13, 
and 26, 2006, you will find press releases that explain Finance 
Committee tax staff research. At my request, the tax staff looked into 
the effects of delaying action on the three widely-applicable expired 
middle-income tax relief provisions. I am talking about the deductions 
for college tuition, teacher's out-of-pocket classroom expenses, and 
State sales tax. You will see that we are talking about a group of up 
to 19 million tax filers being affected. Tax filers means families 
filing jointly and individuals filing as singles. In other words, we 
are talking about a lot more than 19 million taxpayers. Let me repeat 
that. More than 19 million taxpayers. The professional staff, all 
experienced tax practitioners who discussed this problem with the IRS, 
came to the conclusion that delaying action on extenders into the lame 
duck would have adverse consequences for that group of 19 million 
taxpayers. I won't go into details, you will find them on the website.
  Let me say that serving as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee 
is a privilege and a responsibility. I thank the people of Iowa and my 
friends and colleagues in the Senate Republican Caucus for that 
privilege. I enjoy every day I serve as chairman, but it brings 
responsibilities as well. One of those responsibilities is tax policy. 
Now, whether an individual Senator agrees or disagrees with a 
particular expiring tax relief matter is debatable. We all have 
opinions on these things. Probably no two Finance Committee members, 
let alone two U.S. Senators not on the committee, agree on all expiring 
tax relief measures. What we ought to agree on, is that we should not 
deliberately, and I underline the word deliberately, take actions to 
unnecessarily complicate taxpayers' efforts to comply with our 
admittedly complex tax system. That's what delaying action on these 
provisions means. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. If we do not act 
before the 2006 IRS forms are finalized we're causing problems for 
these 19 million taxpayers. It's just not right.
  As chairman, I would not be doing my job if I stayed silent. I had to 
speak out. It's my responsibility to those millions of taxpayers. Some 
have called it whining. Some might call it annoying. Others could call 
it persistence. I call it doing my job. When you are talking about up 
to 19 million middle-income taxpayers who are trying their best to 
comply with the tax system, I will whine until I run out of breath. I 
tried to remedy this problem by persuading my leadership to change

[[Page S10594]]

its mind. I did it in a way that is respectful of the rights and 
responsibilities of the leadership. I'm disappointed and frustrated 
that leadership has failed to act.
  The second reason I pressed for a separate trailer bill is to deal 
with long-expired business-related tax incentives. These matters, like 
the research and development tax credit, are overwhelmingly popular in 
the House and Senate. Businesses have been in limbo on these 
provisions. We are talking about almost 9 months of limbo now and at 
least another month of limbo. A lot of businesses, in good faith, 
relied on my assurances. They relied on assurances of the Congressional 
leadership, made in May of this year. These business folks were assured 
that these extenders would be done. In my State, Rockwell-Collins, of 
Cedar Rapids, is taking a financial hit because of our dilly-dallying. 
And it is not just management that cares. Iowa is a manufacturing State 
and we are proud of our ``R & D.'' Thousands of Iowa employees of these 
companies have the right to ask why this popular provision is being 
delayed. Some of them could ask why something this popular is a 
``hostage'' to be cavalierly shot? They could ask me if political 
``credibility'' of threats is more important than a job-based 
incentive?
  When they ask me these questions, I could blame the Democratic 
leadership for thwarting Republican efforts to get death tax relief. 
Certainly, there's truth to that defense. But, the Iowa workers, as 
most Midwesterners, want to know the bottom-line. Blaming the other 
side is fair political discourse and everyone does it. But it is not a 
satisfactory answer if the matter is not taken care of. We owe these 
companies and workers a ticket out of limbo.
  I come to the third reason I pushed for a separate trailer bill. 
Almost 2 months ago, the proponents of the trifecta rejected my advice 
and decided to place the bet. I advised them publicly and privately 
that it would not work. I won't repeat all of that. It is in the 
Congressional Record of August 3. The bottom line is that the horses 
didn't come in on the trifecta. After the vote, being worried about the 
endless delay on extenders, I suggested a course of action that would 
``keep the hope of death tax relief alive.'' Under the plan, the 
leadership would push for an early vote on the trifecta in either the 
form in which it failed or in a revised form. If it were to fail, I 
suggested we pass a separate trailer bill.
  This plan would have tested, for a fourth time, whether sweeteners 
for key Democrats would turn their votes to favor a death tax relief 
package. I was convinced months ago that sweeteners wouldn't turn 
Democrat votes.
  On this point about turning votes with sweeteners, let's step back 
for a second and look at the big picture. Death tax is a passionate 
issue. There is a moral dimension to it. Liberals tend to define any 
death tax relief as immoral because they argue the benefit of the 
relief will go to wealthy people. The political ads they produce use 
the actress Paris Hilton as an example.
  Conservatives also look at the death tax as a moral issue. They see 
the death tax as confiscation of the fruits of labor and saving. It's a 
penalty on the rewards of hard work. From our perspective, the death 
tax is about small business and family farms. It's about providing one 
generation with a chance to pass on the results of their thrift and 
work to the next generation. The political ads we produce use family 
farm and small business examples.
  So, this is an issue where folks have strong feelings. Ironically, 
from a process standpoint, Republicans and Democrats think alike. Here 
is what I mean by that comment. Republicans and Democrats want 
permanent relief. Most, not all, of my caucus wants permanent repeal. A 
few Democrats agree with that view. Because of the political 
calculations I referred to before, you can not find a definitive 
Democratic Caucus position plan on death tax relief. The Democratic 
Caucus is divided into three groups. Some want repeal. Some want 
significant relief short of repeal. Another group, probably a big 
majority, the liberal core, wants symbolic permanent relief and don't 
want to lose much revenue in doing it.
  There is a huge irony in all of this. The irony is the Republican 
leadership's sweeteners strategy ignores this basic mindset on the 
death tax. Republicans will not compromise their principles on the 
death tax with unrelated sweeteners. Neither will the middle group of 
Democrats.
  The ultimate evidence is record votes. As former Majority Leader Bob 
Dole once said, it's all about the votes. The evidence that sweeteners 
don't matter is on the record. Take a look at it. Timber capital gains 
was added as a sweetener on the first Thomas effort. It did not change 
any votes. There was an effort to add the pension bill to a death tax 
relief package. That didn't change votes and was aborted. Then, we had 
the third sweetener effort, the trifecta. A minimum wage hike, the 
ultimate sweetener, was added along with the trailer bill. It changed 
one vote in gross. We are not certain, that if all Democratic Senators 
were here that day, that, on net, the vote count would have changed.
  As the old saying goes about some places, there is no there, there. 
The sweeteners strategy is like the places the old saying refers to. If 
our goal is 60 votes and permanent death tax relief, there is no there 
there.
  Rest assured, another trifecta run will carry extra political 
baggage. Don't listen to me. Listen to the Democrats who have resisted 
the iron hand of their leadership on this issue. Senator Lincoln has 
taken more heat than any single Senator in trying to get permanent 
death tax relief. Ask her for her opinion on this ``sweetener'' 
strategy. She says forcing the political votes on the trifecta set us 
back on getting permanent death tax relief.
  Why, with the pressure of elections off, and a new session coming up, 
would any targeted Democrat Senator switch their vote on a bill that 
was designed to squeeze them? Would any of my Republican friends in the 
same position react any differently? Think about it.
  Add to this futility another factor. Taking another run at a revised 
trailer bill would start an endless negotiation. If we re-open the 
trailer bill with the idea of adding even more sweeteners, where do we 
stop? How would that endless negotiation help close a deal on permanent 
death tax relief? The truth is trying to play trailer bill issues for 
more votes on death tax relief only complicates resolution of the death 
tax.
  So, the third reason I continued to try to clear the trailer bill is 
that I want a clear path to a death tax deal. Combining death tax 
relief with other issues only complicates our ability to get a death 
tax relief package. There is little or no utility in continuing the 
failed strategy of trying to ``turn'' death tax deal votes.
  Now, where do go from here? As I said a few minutes ago, I want to 
resolve two important tax relief issues--permanent death tax relief and 
the trailer bill. One package is done--it's the trailer bill. The other 
package needs some work, but can get done. We might even have a shot at 
permanent death tax relief in lame duck. If we are going to move the 
ball forward, we are going to have to recognize that we have two 
separate tax relief products. I hope all of us have finally learned 
that lesson. If we have learned our lessons, the trailer bill is a slam 
dunk. If we have learned our lessons, and, key Democrats are finally 
freed to do what they want to do, they will vote their conscience and 
their constituents' interests. If those two critical steps occur, we 
will get a permanent death tax relief deal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my friend, my colleague, and 
chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator Grassley, for trying to 
do what is right, and that is to get the extenders package passed 
tonight. He has done an excellent job of explaining why the so-called 
trifecta bill--that is the standards trailer, melded in with the estate 
tax reform, melded in with a minimum wage reduction--just is not going 
to work.
  Three times I have tried to urge this Senate to pass the so-called 
extenders. Three times the Senate disagreed; that is, I have asked for 
unanimous consent three times and each time the Senate said no. The 
objection was from the other side of the aisle.
  I again thank my friend from Iowa. I think it is important to realize 
how vitally important it is we get these so-called extenders passed. 
What are they?

[[Page S10595]]

They are basic provisions in the Tax Code which expired at the end of 
last year. They expired. There is a deduction for teachers' classroom 
expenses, a deduction for education tuition, there is a deduction for 
State sales tax revenue, there is a deduction for research and 
development. They all expired. These are all provisions that many 
Americans have relied on and hope to rely on when they file their tax 
returns next year.
  They are not in the law. It is already September 29. We have not 
acted to extend these. They are extremely important to an awful lot of 
people.
  Let's just take teachers, for example. Teachers desperately want to 
help teach their kids. Some of them buy classroom supplies. They go 
down to Wal-Mart and buy supplies and they get a deduction for the 
classroom supplies they buy. It is important for the teachers. It is 
important for the kids. It is a good thing to do. It has been in the 
law--at least it has been in the past. It was a law through 2005.
  What about tuition deduction? We all know how important that is and 
how much people depend on that for their education expense, 
particularly when tuition is going up so much. I cannot believe it, 
that expired at the end of last year.
  This Congress, apparently, is not going to enact it. I have asked the 
Senate three times to bring it up and pass it, joined in by my good 
friend from Iowa. Three times the other side of the aisle objected. Why 
did they object? Because they want to tie it back into estate tax 
reform, they want to tie it back into minimum wage reduction. We all 
know that is not going to work. As the Senator from Iowa said, clearly 
and eloquently, we tried that many, many times and that dog don't hunt. 
That bird doesn't fly. It just doesn't work. It is not going to go.
  What should we do, if that is not going to work, if that is not going 
to go? We should exercise our responsibilities and do what is right.
  I have a couple of charts. I want to show everyone what the 1040 form 
looks like. This is the basic Form 1040 that applies to taxpayers who 
paid taxes in the year 2005. The two provisions at issue are 
highlighted here. Line 23 is ``educator expenses,'' and line 34 is 
``tuition and fees deduction.'' Line 23, for educator expenses, is for 
teachers who spend money on classroom supplies. There are 3.3 million 
exercising this deduction. They want to help their kids and, obviously, 
lower their taxes, so they took the deduction.
  Line 34 on Form 1040 is ``tuition and fees deduction.'' About 3.6 
million Americans took advantage of that deduction when filling out 
their tax returns for the tax return for 2005.
  What will happen if we do not pass this extenders provision tonight 
or tomorrow? First, the IRS has said their drop-dead date is mid-
October. They need to know what the law is by mid-October. We will not 
be here mid-October if we do not pass these extenders, these provisions 
in the next couple of hours. We are not going to be here. If we come 
back in a lame duck session--November 13 we are coming back--who knows 
how soon it will be before we finally take up the extenders?
  I suspect because these are so popular that this is going to attract 
an awful lot of other legislation. Maybe it is the estate tax change, 
wages--I don't know what it will be, but it will attract a lot of 
attention at the lame duck session. So that means it will probably 
delay.
  I don't know how long this lame duck session will last. I have been 
here for some lame duck sessions close to Christmas, very close to 
Christmas. I remember one that was 2 or 3 days before Christmas.
  What happens if we pass the extenders late? Here is what will happen. 
These lines I told you about, lines 23 and 34, are going to change. If 
this is the basic 1040 form--and there are more deductions than this 
that taxpayers can take, but these are the basic deductions and the 
most important deductions--line 23 is no longer a deduction for 
teachers classroom supplies. Instead, line 23 is ``Archer MSA 
deduction.'' That is only for up to 750,000 taxpayers. Compare that 
with what has been replaced, classroom teacher deduction, or 3.3 
million teachers. And line 34, that used to be the deduction for 
tuition expenses. That now becomes jury duty pay you pay to your 
employer. How many people take a deduction because their employer pays 
them for jury duty?
  My point is, very important provisions are no longer going to be in 
the law. They will not be available.
  You might ask, gee, what happens if Congress passes these very 
important provisions--who knows when; it could be just before 
Thanksgiving; it could be December; it could be the first part of 
December--the IRS has will be mailing out the wrong forms. The forms 
are going to be wrong because presumably, hopefully, sometime in 
November or December we do what is right, we continue these provisions 
which means to say we do not raise taxes.
  Let's not forget if we do not pass this we are raising taxes, first, 
on 3.3 million teachers; we are raising taxes on another 3.6 million 
people who file for tuition deduction. These people will find their 
taxes increased if we do not pass this provision.
  Again, say we do pass the provisions later in the year, say, in 
November or December, and the wrong forms go out. Then what will 
happen? People will have the wrong forms. Then what will happen? Gee, 
the IRS, will have to figure out what to do about this. Maybe they will 
send out a postcard. Who do you send postcards to? They send postcards 
to people who filed paper returns the preceding year. A lot of people 
do not file paper returns. They are not going to get a postcard. They 
are not going to know. They are not going to know that Congress 
corrected the mistake it made by passing these extensions.

  What about people who file electronically? What about people who buy 
their software, their Turbo Tax software sometime around Thanksgiving 
or the first part of December, getting ready for Christmas, with 
Christmas presents. They are not going to know. They are going to buy 
the wrong software. The software is not going to have the right 
information on it.
  You add it altogether, this Congress is being highly irresponsible by 
not continuing--we call them extenders. There are others: the sales tax 
deduction. What about the R&D tax credit? There are about 16,000 
businesses that use the R&D tax credit. We have reports that many 
companies are going to have to restate their earnings--restate them--
because they cannot calculate the research and development tax credit 
in their financials. They will have to restate them. No company wants 
to restate on the down side. No company wants to do that. Even big 
companies have to restate them--not just small companies but big 
companies. They too will not be able to take advantage of this.
  So I just say it is highly irresponsible for this Congress not to 
extend these provisions. And when I make the request we take up the 
trailer bill and pass it, this is not a perfunctory request. This is 
not some crank turning. This is real.
  I think, unfortunately, there are some people in the leadership on 
the other side of the aisle who think: Oh, this is just a mechanical 
exercise. This is not a mechanical exercise. It is certainly not 
mechanical to all those teachers, kids who paid tuition, who want their 
deduction, businesses that don't get the advantage of the R&D tax 
credit, people who want to deduct their sales taxes that are supposed 
to be deductible. We are not extending that either. We are only talking 
about two of the so-called extenders.
  Our failure to act here is going to be very costly. The IRS has to go 
to great expense to print corrective returns, errata sheets. They have 
to file statements to taxpayers notifying them of changes. Taxpayers 
are going to wonder: What is going on here? Do you know what else is 
going to happen? A lot of taxpayers, teachers, are not going to know 
there has been a change made. They are going to get the wrong form. The 
form is not going to have it on it. There are a lot of people and kids 
and parents who are not going to know there has been a change. They are 
not going to know because it is not on the form.
  Somebody might make an effort to try to tell people later on, but 
there is a real risk of a lot of taxpayers who are just not going to 
know they could take deductions, and they are not going to know because 
they have the wrong information. And they have the wrong information 
because the IRS has given

[[Page S10596]]

them the best information they could at the time, but Congress was 
derelict, Congress was not responsible, Congress did not do what it 
should do for the American people.
  I am very concerned. And, frankly, I am very disappointed. I am 
saddened that this Congress is, in effect, playing games. I hope very 
much, and I ask, I plead with the other side, at least let's hold off 
just a little bit. Don't immediately object. Let's figure out a way to 
work this out.
  We have a few hours here tonight. It is very simple. These are 
provisions everybody has agreed on. There is no disagreement. The only 
problem the other side of the aisle, the majority, has is when to do 
it. I indicated that the drop-dead date for the IRS is October 15, so 
now is the time to do it--not later. We cannot couple this with estate 
tax repeal. We cannot couple this with the minimum wage increases. We 
have tried that a couple, three times. It did not work.
  The dye is cast. Senators have cast their votes. So let's get on with 
it. Let's get on with it. Let's put those issues behind us. We do not 
have to deal with minimum wage or estate tax tonight, but we do have to 
do the extenders tonight. This is very timely.
  I very much hope that nobody objects right away. Maybe we could put 
this off for a few minutes, maybe a half an hour or something, and 
plead with those who are sane, who want to do this right, to just get 
this package of extenders passed. So I am going to ask consent, but 
maybe somebody could modify the consent to hold it off a little longer 
while we try to work out a way to get this passed.
  Mr. President, we do not apparently have the consent request printed 
right in front of me right at this moment. But I am going to have it 
later tonight. That is probably better because that means maybe cooler 
heads will prevail and we can figure out a way to get this passed.
  I see my good friend from Arizona is standing in the Chamber. I know 
he would like to get these provisions passed. I know he has other 
considerations too, but he would like to have this provision passed, 
and I think everybody on the floor would like to get these provisions 
passed. We can deal with these other issues, but we don't have to deal 
with them tonight. We cannot tonight. It is too late. But everybody has 
agreed to this package of extenders--everyone. The chairman of the 
Finance Committee has been desperately trying to get this passed. I 
hope later on tonight, when we ask consent, we get it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under the 
current consent agreement, following me on this side is Senator Harkin 
and Senator Menendez, with Republicans in between.
  I amend that consent and ask unanimous consent that following Senator 
Menendez, Senator Landrieu be allowed to speak for 15 minutes, Senator 
Salazar for 15 minutes, Senator Lautenberg for 15 minutes, with 
Republicans in between, as per their request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would 
the Senator again give me that order? I missed it somehow. Let me see 
if I can insert myself in one of the Republican slots.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, following me is an empty Republican slot.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, if I could be inserted in there for up 
to 10 minutes, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like the same insertion, following 
the Senator from Georgia, in the appropriate order, for no more than 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify her request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I modify the current request that 
following myself, Senator Cornyn be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator 
Harkin for 10 minutes, Senator Craig for 10 minutes, Senator Menendez 
for 10 minutes, a Republican Senator as designated for 10 minutes, 
Senator Landrieu for 15 minutes, a Republican Senator for 10 minutes, 
Senator Salazar for 15 minutes, a Republican Senator for 15 minutes, 
and Senator Lautenberg for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I 
will tell Senator Cornyn you paid him a great compliment, but that it 
be Senator Chambliss instead of Senator Cornyn.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I apologize. It is Senator Chambliss. And I apologize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________