[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16630-16634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend, the distinguished majority 
leader, has laid out a program for the Senate to follow this week. As 
outlined by my friend, it is Alice in Wonderland. He talks about 
Congress and the Senate being a deliberative body, as well as it should 
be, and it has not been in recent years because of the Republicans' 
desire to do as little as possible.
  Take, for example, my friend's statement about pensions. Last Friday, 
conference was agreed upon--working for months and months to come up 
with an agreement that affects 45 million Americans. It is so 
important. We talked a lot about the airlines. That is important to the 
airlines, but a lot of other companies also benefit from this.
  The conference was agreed to. The Democrats and Republicans were 
ready to sign. I wasn't there. I don't know who walked in, whether it 
was the Senator from Tennessee or the chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, but someone said, no, we are not going to agree to the 
conference. Even though you have agreed on it, we are stripping all the 
extenders from this. The conference, in effect, is over.
  Now to come to the Senate and say it is a take-it-or-leave it deal is 
a little hard to comprehend. We have a freestanding bill. If we want to 
be the Senate, as we are supposed to be, it is subject to amendment. A 
conference report is not. The pension thing was all worked out until 
the Republican majority decided they had to get back to the road to 
legislative heaven, and the only road to legislative heaven in this 
Republican-dominated Congress is to repeal the estate tax. So the 
conference report affecting 45 million people was thrown in the garbage 
to take care of 8,100 people, the richest people in America. That is 
what this is all about.
  The minimum wage they bring to the Senate is a travesty. The State of 
Nevada is an example. Everyone knows Las Vegas and Reno are based on 
tourism. Thousands and thousands of people work in Reno and Las Vegas 
for tips. In Nevada, those tips are not counted against your minimum 
wage. It is the same in six other States: California, Montana, 
Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota. Tourism is a big deal and the State 
legislatures there did not want minimum wage to be counted against 
their tips. Where are the States rights we hear so much about from our 
friends on the majority side? They wiped this out with the bill they 
sent to the Senate.
  If this minimum wage passed, it would be a disservice and an unfair 
statement to the people of Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Montana, 
California, and Minnesota. To think we have a minimum wage package that 
is good is a joke, an absolute joke. It is spread out over a longer 
period of time and it penalizes seven States.
  Right now, as we speak, people are being killed in Iraq. Our soldiers 
are being killed in Iraq. It is nighttime in Iraq. They have not 
finished the body count as to the deaths that occurred in the last 24 
hours. Well over 100 Iraqis have been murdered or killed one way or the 
other by the sectarian violence. We have been told by our military 
commanders, and they have sent a letter to the President of the United 
States, saying they need $17 billion yesterday. They want an emergency 
supplemental to take care of the equipment our soldiers are using in 
Iraq. The President has kept that in his bottom drawer someplace. It 
has not come to the Senate. I am sure he will wait until after the 
fiscal year has ended, as he has done in the past. Iraq is not part of 
his normal budget even though the war is going into the fifth year. 
Shouldn't we be working on that, rather than the Republicans' 
domination of time in this Senate with the estate tax repeal? We have 
spent more time on the estate tax than any other issue. It shows the 
difference between the two parties. We are concerned about the poorest 
of the poor; they are concerned about the richest of the rich. The rich 
in America are getting richer--all the statistics show that--the poor 
are getting poorer, and the middle class is being squeezed. For the 
Republican leader to come to the Senate and say this is a take-it-or-
leave package, you take the estate tax repeal--and it has these other 
little goodies they have stuck in it--take it or leave it, and as soon 
as we finish

[[Page 16631]]

that, you can take or leave the pension bill that was once resolved 
Friday until they had to get back on the road to legislative heaven 
with the estate tax repeal--to say that is a take it or leave it is 
truly Alice in Wonderland. This is not the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will briefly respond on a couple of 
issues. Things have moved very quickly and, as the Democratic leader 
knows, not as anticipated exactly as of midpoint last week for all 
sorts of different reasons--in part because of the House departure--and 
things have changed. I am very certain at this juncture the choices 
laid out before the Senate are appropriate choices, that each Senator 
will be able to come to the Senate and express in what direction they 
want to go.
  The distinguished Democratic leader says that extenders were stripped 
out of the pension bill. Let's be very clear that the pension bill that 
passed the House of Representatives did not have tax policy extenders 
in it; the pension bill that passed the Senate did not have the tax 
extenders policy in it. So it is a little bit hard to strip out 
extenders from a pension bill that did not exist in a Senate or House 
bill.
  My distinguished colleague mentioned the pension bill. Things are 
going well in conference on the pension bill. I argue that on the 
pension bill they continue, even through all the other disagreements on 
the pension issue itself, to go very well. The decisions were made on 
the substance of the pension bill, with Democratic Senators in the room 
and Republican Senators in the room, both in discussion throughout. I 
am very comfortable with the pension bill in the nature of the 
conference. But where the conference broke down is on the other issues, 
the tax extenders that were not in either pension bill.
  Repealing the death tax, the third issue that the distinguished 
leader mentioned, I make it clear it is an important issue. I think the 
tax is wrong, it is unsafe, it discourages savings and investment, it 
punishes farmers and small business people in this country. We have 
legitimate disagreement about that. I feel strongly about that. Yes, I 
think the whole tax should be thrown away. It should be buried forever. 
However, we came to the Senate floor and could not get 60 votes. We got 
55 votes, including the ranking member on the Committee on Finance who 
said it is important to bury that death tax forever.
  But in the best spirit of compromise, we understand that right now 
this Senate will not repeal it forever and, therefore, after a lot of 
discussion between both sides of the aisle, we have come back with a 
compromise that basically is not a total repeal, but it does prevent 
the death tax rate from rising, after it disappears 1 year, from up to 
55 percent in 1 year with the exemption dropping down to $1 million. It 
gives a permanent solution. The details of that, as mentioned 
yesterday--and I am sure people will talk about it today--it is a fair 
compromise, and a permanent solution with some certainty for people, 
for the farmers, for the small business people out there today.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FRIST. Let me finish responding to my distinguished colleague.
  The minimum wage that he called ``a joke,'' that we put in the 
trifecta bill, or the House put in the trifecta bill, which we will be 
voting on on Friday, to call a minimum wage that, it is their No. 1 
issue. I have made it clear, again and again, going to the other side, 
What are your issues? The No. 1 issue from that side of the aisle is to 
increase the minimum wage, again and again and again.
  To have this opportunity now to take their No. 1 issue, with the 
issue that is very important to us, that focuses on small business and 
farms, and take their No. 1 issue and put them together, to me is in 
the best spirit of this Senate. I would not call it a joke when you 
increase the minimum wage today from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 an hour. 
Yes, it is over 36 months. Yes, we do include the minimum wage tip 
credit which we feel is very important to small businesses. Yes, there 
is relief for small businesses who might say out there, we cannot 
afford this increase in minimum wage in the tax extenders package where 
we have a 15-year depreciation to give some help to those people who 
might be affected by increasing the minimum wage in a detrimental way, 
but I would not call it a joke. It is their No. 1 issue. To put it 
together in one bill that we can take forward, to me, is in the great 
spirit of coming together in this Senate.
  We come to the fifth item the Democratic leader mentioned, ``other 
issues'' that we are not concentrating on. Again, if you look at this 
month, we look at the infrastructure in this country, we passed the 
Water Resources Development Act, a bill very important to our waterways 
and support of the infrastructure to promote economic growth. The 
Energy bill we will be voting on today we have spent a lot of time on, 
but it has the potential for putting a billion barrels of oil not 
available today out on the markets, 5.6 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas which is not available today. If you talk to farmers, the high 
price of natural gas today drives up that cost of fertilizer, so it is 
important that we will deliver on that today.
  I mentioned earlier issues I know the other side diminishes in 
importance, but that child custody bill that does address issues 
around, yes, the sanctity of life, but what State laws say in people 
trying to circumvent the State laws with regard to parental consent and 
abortion passed this Senate. The Adam Walsh Sex Offenders National 
Registry bill addressed a real problem in this country. We have 100,000 
sex offenders circulating and we do not know where they are today. We 
addressed that in the Senate last week.
  We continue to address the issues important to real people right now 
with regard to their cost of living, to hopefully lower natural gas 
prices in the Senate today, to address the values they care about when 
you talk about parental consent for abortion, people trying to 
circumvent those laws, and sexual predators; or when you talk about the 
infrastructure of our waterways and our waterway development, again, 
which promotes economic growth. I would be hard pressed to say we are 
not addressing the issues that mean something to the average, hard-
working taxpayer out there today.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. I am happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would ask the majority leader, since he called for the 
complete repeal of the estate tax, when President Bush took office, our 
national debt was about $5 trillion; now it is nearing $9 trillion. In 
6 years it has gone from $5 trillion to $9 trillion. What you have 
proposed in the Senate will add at least $1 trillion more to the 
national debt. Is there any limit to the amount of debt you would leave 
to future generations to give tax breaks to wealthy people?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think the misrepresentation of the issue 
we are going to be voting on, on Friday, that has just been made by the 
assistant Democratic leader needs to be addressed.
  Right now, the bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is 
around--the cost of this death tax permanent fix--is around $267 
billion; again, not the $1 trillion that has been laid out. And the 
issues of the dollars and the cents we can argue. What we start with, 
though, is the individual out there, who is running that farm, who is 
running that small business, who has been taxed again and again and 
again, is actually taxed on their death for a second time, a third 
time, a fourth time, and it is just wrong. I would argue it is wrong 
whatever the price is, although the price is about a quarter of the 
figure he put forward. It is important for us to act on what is right 
and what is wrong. That is why, on this Friday, we will be doing just 
that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. FRIST. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Just to clarify the numbers, because I do think the 
assistant Democratic leader has thrown a bit of

[[Page 16632]]

a straw dog out there in his numbers, as to the death tax, as it is 
presently structured under today's law, the exemption is about $2 
million. If we do not put in place this change in the death tax, the 
exemption will go back to $1 million. The tax rate on dollars over the 
$2 million today goes up to about 46 percent, I believe. If we do not 
put in place this change, the tax rate would go up to 60 percent on 
everything over $1 million, potentially.
  What the proposal before us will be is to raise the $2 million limit 
up to $3.5 million, or an increase of $1.5 million, which is basically 
a small family restaurant or a small family farm or a small family 
business. It is not to repeal the tax; it simply is to say to people 
who have small businesses: You will not be wiped out. Your family won't 
be wiped out by estate taxes which would be 60 percent of the value of 
that business over $1 million, potentially. Is that not true?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is absolutely true. And I think as we 
enter this debate over the course of the week, with a lot of these 
straw men that are being thrown out, we will have the opportunity to 
talk about and address the reality of what the costs would be. I think 
that is important. We have to address that. Our fiscal responsibility 
has to be there--but ultimately how it affects that individual farmer, 
who is out there, who dies, and has saved, has invested, has grown that 
farm or that small business, and has already paid taxes on what they 
produced, and to be able to pass that on to their children--again, not 
totally free because we have certain limits. Although I would argue we 
ought to repeal it totally, that is not what is on the floor. The 
compromise is on the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the majority leader would yield further, 
there is no total repeal; is that not correct? What is happening is the 
tax is being reformed to reflect the fact there has been an increase in 
value in assets for especially small businesspeople, especially small 
farmers, and we are trying to protect those families from having their 
businesses wiped out. So the first $3.5 million, no, there would not be 
a tax, but over that there would be a tax?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is exactly right. What is important is 
the permanent solution. Right now, it is absurd to think we almost have 
to have three types of planning for when you die: over the next 3 
years, as these prices come down; and then total elimination for a 
year; and then jump back up to a rate of, as my distinguished colleague 
from New Hampshire said, as high as 60 percent in 1 year, with that 
exemption falling back down to $1 million.
  So what we propose, what we will be voting on now--and then that is 
it, that is it for this year--is a permanent solution to give certainty 
so people will know what the laws are, what the taxes will be, and 
clearly relieve most of the incentive that discourages savings and 
investment.
  Mr. GREGG. If the majority leader will yield for one or two more 
questions. I would also ask, on this minimum wage issue, which the 
Democratic leader has dismissed as irrelevant or ineffective, by my 
calculation, a $2.15 increase--I believe that is what it is; maybe it 
is 10 cents--on a $5 basis is about a 40-percent increase. That is not 
an insignificant increase in the minimum wage, to raise it by 40 
percent, is it?
  Mr. FRIST. It is not. It is either a percentage or the amount $2.10 
for every hour you are working if we pass it this week. It is the law 
of the land, by the way, if we pass it this week as it is written. We 
are talking about a 2.10 absolute. But also it is a percentage 
increase. It is huge. Everybody needs to realize, right now this is 
going to be the law of the land. The House has already passed it. If we 
pass it, it is. That will go up, as both that percentage as well as 
that amount, $2.10. For every hour you are working, you are going to be 
getting more money.
  Mr. GREGG. If the majority leader will yield for one more question 
relative to the budget issues here. We have heard from the other side, 
almost interminably, about the need for pay-go and to live by pay-go. 
Is it not true that these tax cuts within this proposal meet the pay-go 
scorecard?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, absolutely. And this has been very 
carefully crafted to make sure we do meet those criteria. The real 
beauty of what is on the table--again, it is three different bills, but 
each has been addressed very carefully, such as pay-go, such as 
addressing the No. 1 issue from the Democrats on the minimum wage, 
adding the tax extenders. We have not talked very much about those, but 
it includes everything from State and local sales tax deductions to the 
research and development tax credit, which is simplified and extended--
absolutely critical, as we hear from the high-tech people across this 
country in terms of investing for the future to create jobs. The 
college tuition deduction is in there; the work opportunity tax credit; 
the welfare-to-work tax credit; the depreciation for restaurants in 15 
years; the timber capital gains; the mine safety tax incentives; the 
teachers' classroom expenses deduction; combat pay applies to EITC; the 
gulf opportunity zone--that is, the Katrina tax credits. That is what 
we will be voting on today: the permanent death tax relief, the 
extension of the tax relief, and the minimum wage increase.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield for another question?
  Mr. FRIST. I will be happy to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Does the leader share my view that one of the things 
we hear the most from our constituents as we go about the country is: 
Why can't you people in the Senate do things on a bipartisan basis? And 
I heard the leader indicate earlier that we obviously have bipartisan 
support for the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, we have bipartisan 
support for the tax extenders, bipartisan support for the minimum wage, 
and, yes, bipartisan support for a permanent reduction in the death 
tax.
  Why in the world--with bipartisan support for all of these three 
measures which the leader has put on the agenda for the last week 
before the August break--why in the world shouldn't we come together on 
a bipartisan basis and do something together that would be 
overwhelmingly popular with the American people? We have seen the poll 
data on the death tax. Even after Americans understand it does not 
apply to them, they hate the tax and despise it because they think they 
shouldn't have to visit the IRS and the undertaker on the last day. And 
we are not even, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, 
permanently repealing it, which would be our first choice but, rather, 
getting a permanent reduction. The minimum wage is overwhelmingly 
approved, and we have taken Senator Kennedy's figures. What part of 
``yes'' do our friends on the other side not understand?
  So I would just ask my friend, the majority leader, if he can think 
of any rationale why the Senate, any reason why the Senate should not 
come together--with bipartisan support existing for all of these 
measures--this week and have one of the Senate's finest moments, 
operating on a bipartisan basis to do some series of things that are 
important for America?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would just very briefly respond that my 
distinguished colleague from Kentucky really captures the point. Not 
only is it bipartisan support, but it is bipartisan majority support 
for each of these. Remember, for a total repeal, we got, in essence, 55 
votes--for total repeal--and we are coming back with the compromise. 
The extension of the tax relief and the long list I went through are 
issues we have addressed before, and we are extending them because they 
are so popular in terms of bipartisan support. And the minimum wage 
increase is an issue that has bipartisan majority support.
  Each of these issues has been addressed in some shape or form. I am 
sure some people would come back and say we need to spend more time and 
let's put it off until September and let's delay. Each of these issues 
we have addressed. And there has been an appropriate compromise that is 
being brought forth that people will be voting on this Friday.

[[Page 16633]]

  So I think it does capture, potentially, if we continue to work in a 
bipartisan way, the very best of what this body is all about. And it is 
compromise. It is vote. It is action. It is addressing the concerns of 
the everyday people out there today who do scratch their heads at times 
and say: Now is the time for us to act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Again, we live in this ``land of Oz.'' The conferees had 
signed off on the conference report dealing with pensions. Basically, 
there had been an agreement, and they were going to put in that, as 
conferences are able to do, the extenders. They all worked out. We 
would have been voting on that today. But they wanted the extenders to 
help the ``pathway to heaven''--the ``legislative pathway to heaven''--
of the Republicans on the estate tax, so that was taken away.
  Mr. President, if you are working at one of the hotels in Las Vegas 
or one of the resorts in the State of Washington or Oregon or Minnesota 
or California and this minimum wage passes, you would get a decrease in 
your minimal salary. It does not sound very good to me. And I think I 
would class it and the people in Nevada and those other six States 
would say it is a joke. How could you pass something saying it helps 
me; I get a pay decrease. The minimum wage bill they have here is not 
only spread out over 3 years--different from ours--it also penalizes 
seven States.
  For the majority leader to say that minimum wage is our No. 1 issue, 
it is one of our No. 1 issues. We have a lot of No. 1 issues. We care 
about the health care of this Nation--46 million people with no health 
insurance. We care about the kids being able to go to college. We care 
about stem cell research, which the President vetoed. That could be a 
No. 1 issue. I think Iraq is a No. 1 issue--2,600 dead Americans, more 
than 20,000 wounded, costing $3 billion a week. I think that is a No. 1 
issue.
  I did not invent for this Congress the name ``the do-nothing 
Congress.'' Pundits all over America call this the do-nothing Congress 
because we have done nothing. We have been in session very few days. We 
have accomplished virtually nothing. And that is why it is called the 
do-nothing Congress.
  Now, we did not--my friend, the distinguished minority whip, the 
assistant Democratic leader, did not invent the cost of this bill. It 
is every place, in editorials all over the country--``bad bargain'' in 
the Washington Post, it is referred to. And in here it talks about the 
measure would cost $753 billion. No, it is not total repeal; it is only 
80 percent repeal: $753 billion.
  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: House estate tax proposal 
has essentially the same long-term costs as earlier version.
  For the people watching this, Mr. President, understand what has 
happened, as has been pointed out by the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois this morning. During the 6 years President Bush has been in 
office, the debt has skyrocketed, almost doubled: $9 trillion. Now, 
remember, during the Clinton years, the last 3 years President Clinton 
was President, the debt was paid down. So it is great for them to talk 
about pay-go. And as the majority leader mentioned, the death tax he 
does not like, he does not care how much it costs, he said here right 
now.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I asked the majority leader a question. I said: Since we 
are adding to the debt which we are leaving to our children and 
families, is there any limit to the amount of debt you would create in 
America to provide tax breaks for people who are the wealthiest? And he 
would not reply to that, which suggests to me--I would ask the Senator 
from Nevada--that when the majority leader and the majority whip both 
said they really favor repeal of the estate tax--repeal, complete 
repeal of the estate tax--that they are prepared to incur whatever debt 
is necessary and leave that to future generations in order to benefit 
the wealthy few in America.
  We have reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that 
the number of people to be benefited in 1 year in America from this 
estate tax reform is 8,200 people. The average benefit by estate tax 
reform, as they call it, would be $1.4 million for each one of those 
persons.
  I say to the Senator from Nevada, if the majority party in the Senate 
is not even sensitive to the fact that they are now leaving three-
quarters of a trillion dollars of debt for our children and future 
generations to benefit 8,200 families, is this pay as you go? And if it 
is pay as you go, how are the Republicans paying for their reform or 
repeal of the estate tax?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, like they pay for everything else. My 
16 grandchildren are going to be paying for it, and their children are 
going to be paying for it. You talk about a death tax; the estate tax 
is not a death tax. What this Republican-dominated Washington has done 
in the last 6 years has passed on a birth tax to my children, their 
children, my grandchildren, and their children.
  It is obvious what the priorities of this Republican Senate and the 
Republican House are: to take care of the fat cats, the rich people. 
That is what it is all about. They know this minimum wage legislation 
they sent us is flawed. It eliminates an increase for the hard-working 
poorest of the poor in seven States, and it is spread out over 3 years.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada, over what period of time 
have the Democrats in Congress been asking for an increase in the 
minimum wage and over what period of time have Republican Presidents 
and the Republican-led Congress said no repeatedly to an increase in 
the basic $5.15 minimum wage? How long have we been asking for a 
straight-up vote on increasing the minimum wage?
  Mr. REID. It has been about 10 years. As I said here yesterday, I 
don't know why, even though it is a flawed measure they sent us, I 
don't know why they have moved forward. Maybe it is because we stood up 
and said there will be no congressional pay raise until the minimum 
wage is increased or maybe it is because Oprah did a show on this last 
week or maybe it is a combination of both.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada, when the Democrats said 
there will be no congressional pay raise until the minimum wage goes 
up, and all of a sudden the interest in the minimum wage was rekindled 
on the Republican side of the aisle, now that the Republicans have said 
we ought to spread the increase in the minimum wage over 3 years, 
perhaps the congressional pay raises should be spread over a 3-year 
period of time. There should be some symmetry if there is an 
insensitivity to what the lowest paid workers are receiving. I ask the 
Senator from Nevada if that is a proposal we ought to consider.
  Mr. REID. Of course, we should consider it.
  I say through the Chair to my friend from Illinois, we are in this 
predicament because the Republicans have put us here. We are spending 
an inordinate amount of time on seeing if they can run up a debt of 
approximately $1 trillion to the American people to take care of 8,100 
people. That is why we are here. It is not because of the minimum wage; 
they hate the minimum wage. You know that, I know that. It is not 
because of the extenders. The extenders are good for most everybody. 
That is why they put it on the pension bill in conference. We are here 
because of the estate tax repeal. That is what this is all about. All 
the rest is fluff. As I say, the dominating issue of this Republican 
Senate has been estate tax repeal. That means more to them than 
spending time debating the war in Iraq. It means more to them than 
talking about health care.
  It means more to them, certainly, than talking about global warming 
because, according to them, it doesn't exist. It certainly has taken 
away time to talk about why the President vetoed stem cell. This issue 
relating to the estate tax has taken care of everything for them. That 
is their No. 1 issue. You talk about the minimum wage being our No. 1 
issue. They don't have No. 2, 3, 4, 5, like we do. Estate tax is it.

[[Page 16634]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Our agenda has been 
very clear. It has been clearly articulated and, as people look back, 
as they look forward, they will see how all the pieces come together 
because each time we take a bill to the floor there is a complaint. On 
child custody, there is obstruction; we are going to stop it. But it is 
clear to the American people. When we go back to our States and talk to 
the people, they get it. The Democratic leader is right in many ways. 
He says Iraq and dead Americans--the words he used--$3 billion, all of 
which I look at as securing America's homeland and those enduring 
values of freedom and liberty that we know are so important to our 
generation and that next generation. That is what this war on terror is 
about. It is the No. 1 issue, securing America's homeland. I will come 
back to that in a second.
  I hope we can address supporting our troops overseas in the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill, this week. We need to do 
that this week as well. We could go to that tonight. I will talk to 
Chairman Stevens as soon as I finish here to see if we can take that to 
the floor tonight and address it over the next couple of days.
  Securing America's homeland, we addressed in part through our border 
security bill, and addressing immigration, we did spend several weeks 
on the floor of the Senate.
  The second thematic is securing America's prosperity. By prosperity, 
the other side wants to talk about rich people because they know it has 
connotations to it and the sound bites work. But if you look at what we 
are doing, we are talking about people at the lowest rung of the 
economic ladder. We are talking about small businesspeople. We are 
talking about people who feel the squeeze that we know they feel 
because of energy prices and because of health care. Although they can 
say we are not addressing those, at 5 o'clock today we are voting on 
the bill that can have the single greatest impact since our last Energy 
bill a year ago, which was very successful, a bill which has the 
potential for reducing that squeeze that people are feeling today when 
they fill their tractors with fuel. We are addressing it on this floor.
  We addressed health information technology, which I think is the 
single most incremental variable that can transform health care today 
in terms of improved quality, improved availability, and reduced cost, 
by getting rid of the waste and the abuse and even the fraud and the 
medical errors that do typify our health care sector. We addressed that 
in the Senate. We passed it in the Senate, and the House passed it last 
week. Now we can go to conference and pass it. So when we talk 
prosperity, too often the other side just talks about rich people. We 
too often talk about the 5.4 million jobs created--very, very 
important--the 4.7 percent unemployment rate, the lowest of the average 
of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s--all very important. We are 
addressing what the average person, the typical taxpayer is feeling--
energy prices--on the floor of the Senate today.
  We are addressing health care costs through health information 
technology by trying to take small business health plans to the floor 
but having it stopped from consideration by the other side of the 
aisle. People feel those health care costs.
  The third thematic is securing America's values. We have securing 
America's homeland, No. 1; securing prosperity, No. 2; and securing 
America's values, No. 3. Last week, on child custody protection, it is 
being stopped by the other side of the aisle. This body has spoken, but 
it is being obstructed. The Adam Walsh child protection bill, passed, 
signed by the President. We are going to continue to fight for 
America's values.
  I will close by saying, there is a lot we will be talking about over 
the course of the week. I restate once again that vote will be Friday. 
Are we ready to address a permanent solution to the death tax this 
Friday? We are going to say yes or no. If it is no, we are not going to 
do it this year. Extension of tax relief, the issues and the policies 
that I outlined before, we are going to do them now, this week, or we 
are not going to do it, as well as the minimum wage. Remember, if we 
pass it this week, or if we demonstrate that we are going to pass it 
this week, people across this country who are making the minimum wage 
will have that minimum wage go. It has already passed the House, from 
$5.15 to $7.25, a $2.10 increase, if we vote correctly on this Friday.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wanted to correct the Record. I spoke 
inaccurately in that on the issue of pay-go, there is available under 
pay-go approximately $300 billion to cover the cost of this tax bill. 
In one 5-year period, it may be out of compliance, but over the entire 
10-year period, it is clearly within compliance. I did want to make 
that clarification.

                          ____________________