[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16834-16837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will return to the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill. We have several votes on 
amendments and the two managers were able to work out language on a 
number of other amendments that were agreed to by consent. I expect 
another full day on the Defense bill, with votes on amendments, as 
necessary. We will remain in session later into the evening to finish 
the appropriations bill tonight. That is the goal. The two managers 
have patiently waited for Senators to bring their amendments forward. I 
would counsel them to bring the bill to a close if Senators are not 
prepared to come down and offer their amendments. Again, the managers 
are doing a superb job. We need to get Members to move ahead with their 
amendments and make sure they are appropriately offered.
  Last night I filed a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the 
Family Prosperity Act, which is the death tax, the minimum wage, and 
the extenders package. That vote will occur tomorrow morning, unless we 
can finish the Defense bill earlier and we can get an agreement to 
change the timing of that cloture vote.
  Therefore, I encourage Members to remain available for the next 24 to 
48 hours as we consider these two important measures, along with a very 
important pensions bill which we must act upon before we leave.
  Let me turn to the Democratic leader briefly. Schedulingwise, we have 
a busy day, a lot today and tomorrow. I have a couple of things I want 
to discuss, including commenting on the bill for tomorrow morning and 
also trying to go to the child custody protection.
  Anything else on the schedule to address?
  Mr. REID. No.


                  unanimous consent request--h.r. 748

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me go to the Child Custody Protection 
Act. This is a bill that earlier this week I asked unanimous consent to 
go to conference on, a bill we passed last week with strong bipartisan 
support, 65 to 34. The assistant Democratic leader objected to this 
request on the grounds that he wanted assurance that language offered 
in an amendment by Senator Boxer would be retained. He was referring to 
the only amendment that the Senate agreed to on that bill. This 
amendment clarifies that a father who victimized his daughter by incest 
would not be able to transport her across State lines for an abortion 
or to sue anyone who did. This amendment offered by Senator Boxer and 
cosponsored by Senator Feinstein passed the Senate 98 to 0. I obviously 
voted for it. It improved the bill. I fully support the amendment.
  To accommodate the concern that was expressed, I pledged I will not 
support a conference report or any consideration of a conference report 
that does not retain that Boxer-Ensign language we agreed to July 25. I 
take the Democratic leader at his word and want to address his concern. 
Thus, I make it clear I give my word that the language he wants will be 
included and his request will be met. I trust that by addressing his 
stated concern we will be able to move forward.
  I now ask for unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to 
consideration of H.R. 748, provided that all after the enacting clause 
be stricken, and the text of S. 403 be inserted in lieu thereof, the 
bill then be read the third time and passed, the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees with the ratio of 3 to 2.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, first of all, I voted for 
this legislation. I support it. However, there are Senators on this 
side of the aisle who do not. Senator Boxer appreciates the assurance 
that has been given to her through the public statement of the leader. 
She has heard from others that does not bind what the House would do 
with this piece of legislation.
  That is one of the problems we have when you spend so much time on 
issues that are taking far too much time. We talked about the estate 
tax endlessly. There are ways, even though there are people on this 
side of the aisle who object to going to conference, that this matter 
can be taken to conference. We pass bills all the time by sending a 
bill to the House and having them accept it. If that does not work, 
there are procedural methods that can be taken.
  The bill passed by 70 votes or even more, far more than enough to 
overcome any procedural hurdles anyone could stand in the way of. Steps 
just have to be initiated.
  As a result of that, on behalf of Senator Boxer and others, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I shortly will move to a statement on the 
Family Prosperity Act, but both of my distinguished colleagues from 
Nevada are here. If I could briefly yield to my distinguished 
colleague, the sponsor of the bill we were just talking about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page 16835]]


  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Child Custody Protection Act is an 
important piece of legislation. During the debate, we heard from people 
from around the country that this is an important piece of legislation, 
and they want to see it move forward. We had heard the last couple of 
years that neither side of the aisle would cooperate with the other 
side. During the child custody debate, we cooperated. There was an 
agreement between the leaders. We had a certain number of amendments. 
The whole tenor of the debate, on a very emotional issue, was 
cooperative. Even though we disagreed on the issue, there was 
cooperation. I worked with Senator Boxer on the amendment. We had 
several amendments. We ended up getting it down to basically a Boxer-
Ensign amendment that strongly improved the bill. I asked her if she 
wanted a voice vote on the bill. She said no, she wanted a recorded 
vote to make sure it stayed in conference. I told her, that is great, 
we will have a recorded vote. Saying she wanted that recorded vote to 
stay in conference indicated to me that there would be cooperation to 
go to conference. We had a recorded vote. It is an amendment I feel 
strongly about and want to see it stay in the bill in conference.
  To now block, via a parliamentary move, an important piece of 
legislation simply because we are at the end of a session and the other 
side knows we do not have the time to go through all the procedural 
maneuverings is outrageous, especially because this Senate operates 
with some kind of collegiality. When you are cooperating, you should 
cooperate.
  There were accusations made that we should not bring up this 
legislation because we don't have the time and we should be talking 
about more important issues. What the other side is doing, by some 
Senators blocking this, is saying you should spend more time on this 
issue. If they were truly genuine in what they were saying, that we 
shouldn't spend too much time on this issue, then let's go to it.
  It is a simple unanimous consent agreement that doesn't take any more 
floor time. It is boom, it is done, we are done with this bill, and we 
can go to conference and work out the differences. We will strongly 
support the Senate side the way the bill came out of the Senate. There 
may be some small changes we have to make in conference, but the bottom 
line is we should move forward with this legislation.
  The instructions being put out by the other side are wrong. I hope 
the American people can get involved and let their Senators know they 
are unhappy about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, one final issue to address is with regard 
to tomorrow's vote on the Family Prosperity Act. Tomorrow, we will be 
voting on whether to proceed to the consideration of the Family 
Prosperity Act, which is the compromise--I emphasize compromise--
permanent solution to the death tax; second, extending important tax 
provisions such as college tuition deductions, research and 
development, sales tax deductibility; and, third, raising the minimum 
wage with a 40-percent increase.
  This Senate will decide tomorrow morning whether these issues are 
sufficiently important to people across this country who are paying 
attention or whether they are not sufficiently important to bring to 
the Senate. That is what this vote is all about.
  A ``yes'' vote tomorrow morning to proceed to the bills tells the 
American family that we are listening to you, that we are with you, 
that we hear you, that we understand your daily challenges. A ``no'' 
vote to proceed to the bills tells the American family these issues are 
simply not sufficiently important for the Senate to consider, a 
permanent solution to the death tax, extending those tax provisions, 
raising the minimum wage.
  Friday's vote--tomorrow morning--is an important vote. I made it very 
clear that we will not split up the bills. I made it clear this is a 
package and we will move to proceed to them as such. Each Senator will, 
of course, be accountable to their constituents over the recess for how 
they vote, either with the American family or against the American 
family.
  Earlier this week, one of my distinguished colleagues came to the 
Senate and quoted President Truman and his whistlestop campaign and the 
``do nothing Congress.'' Why? Because my colleague does not believe the 
issues addressed in this particular bill, the Family Prosperity Act, 
are matters of importance to the American people. Some do not believe 
eliminating the death tax is important to the American people, some do 
not believe extending tax relief is important to the American people, 
and some don't believe raising the minimum wage is important to the 
American people.
  Yet the majority of the American people believe each one of these 
issues is important and does deserve consideration. If you look at the 
permanent death tax, roughly 70 percent of Americans support repeal of 
the death tax. This is not repeal. We brought that to the floor and we 
got 55 votes, so we are moving in that direction, but that is not 
sufficient. So we have a compromise permanent solution. This is an 
issue that touches the lives and livelihoods of Americans from 
Washington, DC, to Washington State.
  Back home in Tennessee, Ann Bennett's family has farmed the same 
piece of land in Kingsport for the past 70 years for one generation and 
the other two generations make it a total of 130 years. Already, they 
have paid over $100,000 in death taxes so her father could inherit the 
farm from his father. When Ann's father passes on, Ann and her sisters 
have to come up with $2 million just to hold on to that family farm.
  At its core, the death tax is a cruel and unfair burden inflicted on 
America's small businesses, on farmers, and on families during a time 
of grieving and pain. It punishes everyday Americans such as Ann 
Bennett by forcing them to give up businesses that their loved ones 
worked their entire lives to build and to pass on.
  Whether it is farming or ranching or construction, they are all 
capital intensive, they are all labor intensive. But the cost of 
passing these enterprises on to future generations in one piece is 
often prohibitive.
  Partly as a result of the death tax, about 90 percent of family 
businesses don't survive for a third generation.
  Even those who manage to pass their family business on are adversely 
affected. Instead of spending money to innovate--to grow their 
businesses or to invest in new jobs that help our economy--they pay the 
Federal Government.
  We have allowed time to address many pressing issues already this 
Congress. We have acted. We have done something.
  And now it is time for us to do something about the death tax. It was 
imposed as a temporary measure during World War I. But since then it's 
managed to wedge its way tightly into our Tax Code.
  Americans have waited long enough for Congress to take the death tax 
burden off their backs with a permanent solution. Today is our chance 
to act.
  Similarly, for nearly 20 years Tennesseans waited for Congress to 
restore State sales tax deductibility. It is one of the provisions in 
the so-called ``tax extenders''.
  From 1986 until 2004, hard working Tennesseans were placed at a 
disadvantage--simply because Tennessee was one of seven States that 
choose to raise revenue primarily through a sales tax instead of an 
income tax.
  Congress and President Bush acted in 2004 to restore the State sales 
tax deductibility--and to restore fairness to Federal tax policy.
  But the provision expired last year--and more than 640,000 Tennessee 
families will suffer if the tax relief isn't extended. That is 
unacceptable.
  The State and local sales tax deduction is just 1 of more than 20 tax 
policy extensions included in the Family Prosperity Act.
  These extensions will keep taxes low, helping Americans find and keep 
work. They help families tackle the increasing cost of living. And they 
strengthen the economic security of hardworking Americans everywhere.

[[Page 16836]]

  To me, that is important.
  The final piece of the Family Prosperity Act increases the minimum 
wage. Specifically, it raises the minimum wage rate $2.10 over 36 
months in three increments of 70 cents. That is a 40 percent increase 
in the minimum wage.
  It includes a tip credit provision that protects employee wages at 
their current level. In the seven States where there is no tip credit, 
this bill would allow the credit to apply only against future State 
increases in the minimum wage.
  It would not result in any workers' wages being lowered. Some have 
said otherwise, but that is simply not the case--and colleagues should 
not be misled by opponents of this bill into believing something that 
is simply not true.
  For young workers entering the job market for the first time--the 
minimum wage hike is welcome news. We're helping them meet the 
increasing cost of day-to-day living.
  As I said earlier this week, this--the Family Prosperity Act--is the 
last chance--the last chance--the Senate will have during the 109th 
Congress to give these workers a boost.
  There will always be new, emerging challenges to address here on the 
Senate floor. And it is our responsibility to address them--to deliver 
effective solutions in a timely manner.
  But it is also our responsibility to address those challenges that 
compound over time--the challenges and burdens that develop slowly and 
affect Americans with latent urgency.
  The death tax is one of those issues. So are tax relief extenders and 
raising the minimum raise.
  That is why we are taking up the death tax once again. That is why we 
are extending key tax relief provisions for other 2 years. And that is 
why we are raising the minimum wage.
  We are not ``doing nothing.'' We are doing something--about issues 
that concern hardworking Americans across the Nation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I try to read the newspapers very well every 
day. I am one who reads the editorials. I read people such as E.J. 
Dionne, who represents important, progressive writers. But I am a fan 
of Robert Novak. That may surprise someone, but I read Robert Novak's 
column whenever it appears. It may also surprise people to know that I 
am a friend of Robert Novak. I don't agree with him much of the time, 
but some of the time I do.
  I want to start my presentation this morning following the suggestion 
made by the majority leader. In papers today all over the country is 
the column of Robert Novak. Among other things, he said--because of the 
legislative proposals we have before us that the leader says is our 
last chance--because of this ``Republicans cast doubt on what they 
really believe.''
  He goes on to say, among other things, that ``A lame-duck committee 
chairman''--we all know that is Chairman Thomas--``overpowering 
Congress connotes weak leadership in both the House and the Senate and 
a President detached from legislative activity.''
  I couldn't say it better myself. I give that to Bob Novak.
  He goes on to say that Thomas, last week, combined them with the 
extenders bill--minimum wage and estate tax legislation.
  He went on to say:

       Arrogant, acerbic and authoritarian, the chairman was going 
     out with a bravura performance [refusing to walk across the 
     Capitol to meet with Senators].

  He refused to come to the Dirksen building.
  He said further:

       Last week Senators cooled their heels for hours while 
     waiting for Thomas and other House Members to attend a 
     meeting.

  And among other things, he said, ``But Grassley''--Chairman of the 
Finance Committee here in the Senate--``was undercut by Senate Majority 
Leader Bill Frist's support of the Thomas plan.''
  As a young man I had my first trip to New York City. That is a long 
way from Searchlight. But I was there among the great big buildings. I 
was fascinated by some people on the street. They had little containers 
on a table there. They were asking people for a few cents to find out 
where the money was. I watched that. I watched people come up and give 
them money. It was magic. It was a shell game. I had never seen one 
before. The guy in the shell game never lost. I don't know how he did 
it. He would move these things around right in front of us. And when 
you picked it up, it wasn't there.
  That is what we have going on here. This is a shell game with fancy 
names such as ``Family Prosperity Act.'' Is that something similar to 
the Clear Skies initiative that pollutes our skies? Is that something 
similar to Leave No Child Behind but leaves all of our children behind? 
Is that something similar to the budget deficit reduction plan which 
increased the deficit?
  This is a shell game. I am going to have a more complete statement 
before we vote on this.
  I wish to make a couple of comments regarding my distinguished 
colleague's assertion. He gives the name of somebody on a farm.
  One of the sitting Senators from the State of California, with 35 
million people--California feeds most of America and other parts of the 
world. It is the agricultural capital of the world, the great Imperial 
Valley and other places in California that produce wonderful fruits and 
vegetables.
  The Farm Bureau, which supports passage of the repeal of the estate 
tax for reasons no one can understand because the California Senator 
asked the head of National Farm Bureau: During the past 10 years, give 
me the name of a farmer or farmers or ranchers who lost their farms as 
a result of the estate tax. Zero, none. That is a myth.
  I will bet every Democratic Senator thinks we should do something to 
change the estate tax a little bit.
  When I was in law school, the ceiling was $60,000. It is now $2.5 
million--whatever it is, an escalating level, but it is a lot more than 
it was then.
  I am terribly disappointed with the situation we have in the Senate 
today. This should have been the day we were doing our victory laps 
prior to going home for the August recess. We should have felt good. I 
felt good. We were finally going to be able to do something about 
coastal erosion, to restore the coasts, especially around New Orleans. 
I have been worried about that. I was twice chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee. We finally had an opportunity, and what do 
we do? We should be leaving feeling good. We should feel good today 
about what Senators Baucus and Grassley did for us in taking care of 
the pensions bill, which directly affects 45 million people and 
indirectly affects 145 million Americans. It was done. It was signed.
  That is what Robert Novak is talking about. It was done--the pension 
bill was done. It had the extenders on it.
  That is when Chairman Thomas, as indicated here, showed that he could 
outsmart the House leadership and the Senate leadership. And as 
indicated here, Grassley was undercut by Senate Majority Leader Bill 
Frist in supporting the Thomas plan.
  It was all done. It would have taken an hour here. The extenders 
would have been done, and the pension bill would have been completed. 
It was done, agreed upon by the House and Senate conferees.
  We should have been leaving today feeling so good about that. We 
should be leaving today feeling good about having given the money to 
our beleaguered troops, which is so badly needed.
  We learned this week that a month ago the President got a message 
from his generals that the war machine was worn out. They wanted $17 
billion--yesterday--to refurbish the fighting forces we have. Our 
valiant soldiers are fighting, but they are doing it with equipment 
that needs repair.
  We learned a day later from the head of the National Guard that they 
are underfunded by $34 billion. The Nevada National Guard followed up 
by saying, as a number of our Guard around the country said--a lot of 
our equipment is still in Iraq.
  We should have left feeling that we had completed work on the 
Military Construction bill and the Defense appropriations bill. But no; 
we have been jammed into this situation that we have here today.

[[Page 16837]]

  Of course, we should have felt good about these extenders that now we 
have been threatened: We are not going to do them at all--which we know 
we will do before we leave. We are going to do them.
  This should not be called the ``trifecta'' bill--as it has been 
referred to too often by my friends in the majority--but the 
``defecta'' bill.
  The minimum wage issue is absolutely so hard to comprehend. We know--
and Bob Novak talks about it--the Republicans hate the minimum wage. He 
is the mouth of the conservatives. He says Republicans hate the minimum 
wage. And they give us a bill so they can say ``minimum wage''--but it 
is a pay cut for people in seven States. Then it is spread out over 3 
years.
  They couldn't bring themselves to do a pay increase right away.
  The richest man in the world is named Warren Buffett. He has more 
money than all of the Saudi princes. He has $34 billion in the bank, 
cash money. He is opposed to repealing the estate tax.
  Bill Gates of Microsoft--he and his father are opposed to repealing 
the estate tax.
  What I say about the ``defecta'' bill is let us vote on the motion to 
proceed right now--right now. Set it up and make it so each side will 
have half an hour of debate on it. Let us vote on the motion to proceed 
right now. We don't need to wait until tomorrow morning. We are ready 
to do it right now, so that we can get to work on the Defense bill, so 
that we can do the extenders; otherwise, we are just churning time.
  Let us vote on it.
  The Family Prosperity Act is for 8,100 in this country. It really is. 
That is how many this applies to with repeal of the estate tax--8,100 
of the richest of the rich.
  It is time to put the charade to bed. We are ready to end this 
circus. Let us have the cloture vote now so we can get on with the 
business of the American people. The Senate has already spent far too 
much time on the No. 1 priority of the Republicans. The road to 
``legislative heaven'' of the Republicans is the estate tax repeal.
  We have spent more time on this issue in this do-nothing Congress 
than anything else--far more time than we have spent on our troops in 
Iraq--on 8,100 families. Is this the legacy of the Republican majority, 
to spend all of our time on repealing the estate tax and threatening--
threatening--Democratic Senators, Republican Senators, and the American 
people: Either do it with the ``defecta'' bill or we are not going to 
do anything?
  We need to vote. We need a new direction in this country, and it 
should start right now.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________