Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. That is right, matters related to the bill.

Mr. DAYTON. Fifteen minutes, if I may.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, and I certainly want to join in his remarks commending the husband of the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator Dole-- both distinguished Senators Dole--and also to recognize Chairman Warner, who has been superb in his quest for the truth of what has happened in Iraq that has come to light in recent days. I know it has been very difficult and there has been a high amount of pressure on him, but he and our ranking member, Senator Levin, have led us well on that committee, as they have throughout my 3\1/2\ years of service. We are very fortunate that he has continued his distinguished leadership to our Senate and to our Nation throughout these years and continues to do so now. This week we are debating the Defense Authorization Act for 2005 and will return to it after the Memorial Day recess. I thank the majority leader, Senator Frist, for not trying to rush us through this important legislation, because it is complex, and it is also very costly. This bill authorizes $422 billion of taxpayer money and borrowed funds for our national defense purposes in fiscal year 2005. That does not count the $25 billion supplemental that the President has requested, and it does not count the additional supplemental that we know soon after the November election will also be requested for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during the rest of that fiscal year, probably another $35 billion to $50 billion. That means a total of almost $500 billion authorized for military operations in the year 2005. When I arrived 4 years ago, in fiscal year 2001, that comparable figure was $309 billion. That is an increase of over 60 percent in just 4 years. Obviously, a lot has happened since then. There was 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism, homeland security, costs most of which are not included in this bill. I have supported every defense, homeland security authorization, and appropriations bill during my 3\1/2\ years in the Senate, and I sit on both authorizing committees. I will support this bill, as I did in committee. I will support the $25 billion supplemental appropriation, as I have all of the previous supplemental requests. I want to ask for some answers from our Commander in Chief, President Bush: In return for this $500 billion of taxpayers' money, what is your plan in Iraq? What must be accomplished, and by whom, before we declare victory? How long will that take? I spent 5 hours in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings this week, 1 hour yesterday with approximately 40 of my colleagues, with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the generals in charge of the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I did not get answers to those basic questions. I heard generalities but not answers. General Abizaid, the excellent general in charge of that region of the war, said it is vital that we ``stay the course.'' OK. But what course are we on? Where does it lead us? Where are you leading us, Mr. President? I voted against the Iraq resolution in October of 2002 for three reasons. I thought it was unconstitutional for Congress to give up its constitutional responsibility to declare war and give the President that authority 6 months before he himself made his decision. Second, I was not persuaded that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened our national security. Third, I believed the invasion and occupation of an Arab nation would weaken, not strengthen, our national security. I believe I was right on all three. Now that we are there, I want us to succeed. We must succeed. The stakes are too high for failure or defeat. But what constitutes success? We have already successfully achieved our stated objectives. Our Armed Forces smashed Saddam Hussein's army and toppled his regime in 3 weeks. We won that military victory overwhelmingly. We determined that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to use against us or anyone else. None were used, thank God. None were found on the battlefields or in caches or in sheds or caves or anywhere else. None were even in production. For the last year, our Armed Forces have heroically protected the country, helped to rebuild it, and trained and equipped some 200,000 Iraqis as police and militia. On June 30, some measure of authority will be transferred to an Iraqi government, selected by a representative of the United Nations, along with a blueprint for developing a national constitution and holding democratic elections. Success, success, success--a grand slam. What else must we do? Madam President, 794 heroic Americans have given their lives to achieve that success, and I join with my colleague, Senator Coleman, who cited each of those Minnesotans by name. They are truly, like their fallen comrades, American heroes. Thousands more American heroes have been wounded. There are 134,000 American heroes risking their lives every day and every night over in Iraq for some indefinite period of time. And for what? For what, Mr. President? We can do no more for the people of Iraq than give them back their country. What they decide to do with it is up to them. That is democracy. It is their country. They should administer it, patrol it, police it, and defend it--not us. If we are doing any of that, we are still running their country. We still get blamed for whatever is going wrong. Our men and women still do the fighting, the bleeding, and the dying. Yet growing numbers of Iraqi citizens and people in other Arab countries hate us, want to drive us out of Iraq, want to retaliate against our troops or against our citizens. The longer we occupy Iraq, the more that hatred will increase. There is no such thing as a perfect war. War causes deaths and destruction on intended targets and unintended victims. The devastation, the killing and maiming is horrific on everybody--our soldiers, their soldiers, their civilians, innocent men, women, and children who live there. Remember, it is their home. The stakes are inevitable and their ill effects are cumulative. Last week, it was Abu Ghraib. This week it is a wedding attack. Next week it will be something else. There is no subtraction. There is no better. There is either war or there is peace. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Again, I call upon President Bush to explain to us, the American people and to the world, for what purpose do we now remain in Iraq? What more must we accomplish, and how long will it take? How will the Iraqis learn to run their country except by running their country? How will they learn to police it except by policing it, to defend it except by defending it? It will not be easy for them. It will not be smooth. They have not had those responsibilities for over a quarter century, but it is time they started now, step by step, stage by stage. They should do more, and we should do less. If we must extinguish every pocket of resistance, we will be there a long time, particularly when it is resistance to our being there. The responsibility for 5,000 insurgents should be the Iraqis'--not ours. Their police should patrol their streets, protect their property, keep their peace--not our soldiers. In Falluja, where Marine General Tim Conway turned those responsibilities over to Iraqi command, an uprising of 2 weeks ago is reportedly quieting down. Insurgents battling against us switched sides and joined the local police force. Most of the people fighting against us there stopped fighting against their fellow Iraqis and the rest were told to leave town by other Iraqis. Surely 200,000 Iraqi police and militia can contain 5,000 insurgents without us, without our bleeding and dying. Our decision is, do we get out of Iraq in months or do we want to stay in Iraq for years? Right now the Bush administration's intention appears to be geared for years, with the assumption that our staying longer will produce a better result, a result more to our liking, for whatever those unstated reasons are. But what if our staying longer will make things worse, for the Iraqis and for us? More violence, more casualties, more unrest, and more instability? That is not success. The worse conditions become there, the harder it becomes for us to leave because we cannot be considered weak or lacking will. In fact, the world doesn't think we are weak. They don't question our will. They are wondering if we are wise. Getting out of Iraq in months instead of years is wise. We do it on our stated terms, not on anyone else's. We phase ourselves out, we phase Iraqis in--quickly. First they are made to have responsibility for their cities, for patrolling, policing, establishing law and keeping order; then their highways and other infrastructure; then oilfields and refineries; then their border security. During that transition, up to one-half of our forces could depart, be stationed in a neighboring country at the ready, and the other half could transition, as this transfer occurs, to secure base camps in Iraq where we will make it clear we will not tolerate anarchy or civil war or foreign intervention. The rest of it we allow the Iraqis to work out for themselves, among themselves, by themselves. We enlist other Arab nations and the United Nations to assist with those resolutions while we ensure against catastrophe, and we make clear our intention to leave as soon as Iraq's sovereignty is secure, as soon as Iraq's new government has established law and order. That is their democracy. That is our success. Paradoxically, in life the more you try to control events to get what you want, the more you become controlled by those events and you don't get what you want. The administration picked their favorite Iraqi-in- exile and paid him reportedly millions of dollars to do their bidding. This week, American troops raided his headquarters and arrested his cronies. We don't know who the right Iraqis are to lead their country. Iraqis may not know yet themselves. But they will have better ideas than we will. Our challenge, and our opportunity, will be to befriend their chosen leaders rather than to make our chosen friends into their leaders, only to discover they are not friends at all. Instead, we should focus our efforts on aiding Iraq's new leaders to succeed, to rebuild and improve their country. That will make their leaders our friends. That will make their citizens our friends. That will help make more people in the Arab world our friends. And that would strengthen our national security much more than would more war. To date, only $3.7 billion of the $15 billion Congress provided to help rebuild Iraq has been expended. Obviously, the lack of security has limited those expenditures. But so has the lack of commitment by the Bush administration because they have eschewed nation building. They have spent even less than that for rebuilding Afghanistan, a country which has a credible leader, President Karzai, with whom I met in Kabul, Afghanistan in January of 2002. He was desperate for our help in rebuilding his destitute country. What an opportunity to show the people of Afghanistan and the people of the Arab world what American knowledge, technology, capitalism, and compassion can do to make their lives better. It is an opportunity so far squandered by the Bush administration which, as I said, scorns nation building. Nation building is better than nation bombing--better for them, better for us, and better for the world. A better world is our best national security. People whose lives we are helping to improve, who we are teaching and aiding to improve their own lives, become our friends, not our enemies. They will not harbor our enemies or help them. They will stand with us and the rest of the civilized world in rejecting terrorism and expelling terrorists from their own countries and their havens in the world. Paradoxically, every day we are fighting the war in Iraq we are weakening our defenses against terrorism. Every day we make peace in Iraq, help rebuild Iraq, help rebuild Afghanistan, we are strengthening our defenses against terrorism. The war against terrorism will be won by building a peaceful world, by building a prosperous world, for the multitudes, not just the millionaires. Raising standards of living, social justice and the rule of law--all that will foster democracy; not military occupation or provisional authorities, not prisoner abuses or more armored tanks. So, tell us your plan, Mr. President, as we approach Memorial Day. Tell us how you will bring our 134,000 troops in Iraq safely home, and when. And tell us what course we are on; military escalation or peaceful cooperation? Nation bombing or nation building? Financial bankruptcy or global prosperity? You are asking your fellow citizens for 4 more years, Mr. President. Tell us first what course we are on. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this week brought the disturbing news that the Senate, the House, and the White House might not be able to agree on a new transportation funding bill, that we would have to set it aside then until next year to be acted upon. That would be disastrous for my home State of Minnesota, and I suspect for many of the States my colleagues represent. Traffic congestion in our main metropolitan areas in Minnesota has worsened at alarming rates during the past decade. The deterioration of our roads, highways, and bridges throughout greater Minnesota, more rural areas of our State, has also reached crisis levels. More and more of our highways have become unsafe due to this deterioration and congestion. More motorists are dying, being injured or maimed as a result. Business owners and farmers find that transporting their goods and products to market takes longer and is more costly. Some of the seasonal national weight restrictions force major employers such as Polaris, Artic Cat, and Marvin Windows, which are located in northwestern Minnesota, to have to reroute their trucks, adding time, expense, and unreliability that become major drawbacks to operating a business in Minnesota. Businesses executives, their employees and their families, have to take longer to drive to and from work, school, and weekend cabins, and they are less safe in doing so. Every day and night, many thousands of Minnesotans endure these delays and disruptions. They are angry and frustrated, and they rightfully want their Government to act on their behalf now. They have paid and they will continue to pay their Federal gasoline tax dollars into the highway trust fund, and they want that money fully expended on vitally needed highway improvement projects starting now. Our Senate bill, the one we passed some time ago, responded to their needs. Our bill increased the highway and transit funding significantly over the next 6 years compared to the last 6 years. For my State of Minnesota, the increase is 81 percent, thanks to the overall increase which was passed with bipartisan support at the committee and the full Senate level, and with special appreciation to Senator Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for correcting the ethanol penalty which was penalizing Minnesota and other States that placed a mandate on ethanol consumption as part of every gallon of gasoline. Senator Coleman, my colleague from Minnesota, and I worked together to keep these provisions benefiting Minnesota in the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the House scaled back their overall bill from what even most of their Members wanted themselves, at the insistence of the White House. But the President said even that reduced level in the House bill is too high, and the Senate's version is too high a figure. In fact, the President set a level of funding that is $60 billion less than in our Senate bill. That is $10 billion a year less for highway and other transit projects throughout America. We are told that every $1 billion of spending on transportation projects creates 47,500 jobs. So $10 billion a year less spending means 475,000 fewer jobs this summer, next summer, and throughout the next 6 years--475,000 jobs, American jobs, jobs that we could be putting into place right now. People in my State and your State would be going to work right now to perform vitally needed infrastructure improvement projects with dollars that have already been committed and received and are set aside for this purpose. Why doesn't that matter to the White House? Why can't we act as we should anyway to move this matter forward? The President has his rightful prerogative to veto a bill with which he does not agree. I am told by the manager of the bill in the Senate that he believes we have the votes to override that veto because these projects are so important to so many Members, and rightfully so. He believes the House has the necessary votes to override a Presidential veto because the projects in the bill are vitally important to their districts. That is the way the system is supposed to work. If the President vetoes, we can attempt to override so the public interest is served. From what I am reading this week, the majority leader and the Speaker of the House have said they will not take the conference committee report, the final legislation, to the White House if the President is going to veto it. That means the President can dictate to the Congress the level of funding he will accept, and we have no choice but either to agree to that reduced level or to set the bill aside until next year. That is not the way the process is supposed to work, if we believe in something--and we do. I commend Senator Inhofe, the manager of the bill, who has been tenacious and terrific at standing up for the needs of, I am sure, the State of Oklahoma, but also reflective of the urgent needs in my State of Minnesota and elsewhere, and saying this is the right thing to do. On paper this may look like it is some kind of brand new fiscal responsibility that we certainly have not seen from the White House in the last 3\1/2\ years, with budget deficits extending now as far as the eye can see at record levels. But this is the wrong bill to sort of suddenly get fiscal religion and go on to make a spectacle of because these are capital expenditures that are going to benefit our country for an extended period of time, and as business owners, farm owners, homeowners know, the proper reason to go into debt is for capital expenditures for long-term improvements. If you are going to be fiscally prudent, then you pay cash for current consumption. We have it backward. We are creating enormous deficits based on current consumption, and then when we get to a bill where we should legitimately be incurring debt, if we need to, for long-term capital expenditures, we are going in the other direction--for politics, for reelection politics, not for the public interest. We know that. I bet the Speaker knows that. Certainly the members in his caucus know that. We need to stand up and speak out and insist that our voices be heard, that our proffer of responsibilities in this body on behalf of the people of our States be exercised. Our leader and the House leader should take this bill to conference and protect all the projects that are of concern to myself and members of my caucus--as the projects of importance to the members of the majority caucus will be, I am sure, protected, as they should be, just as is the tradition in the House. Writing those into the actual House bill will, I am told, ensure they will be protected, honored, for both the Republican and Democratic Members. That is the way the system has worked, I am told, in the past. Frankly, I think we should dispense with all of those earmarked projects which benefit some States far more than others--more than my State--because of the way the memberships on committees and seniority falls, but that is a discussion for another day. Given that is the system we have, I certainly understand why I and my colleagues on this side of the aisle need to and should have the right to assurances that our projects are going to be treated as they have been in the past and not just discarded in the committee, as so many of our amendments and proposals have been in other legislation earlier this year and last year. But that is something that can readily be resolved. That is a very minor consideration compared to what, I am told, is the real obstacle right now, and that is to get the leadership of the Senate and the House to be willing to take a bill to the President that we say is the right thing to do. We know what that is. It is what our Senate bill provided overall and for our respective States. It is a fiscally responsible bill because it uses every dollar in the highway trust fund over the next 6 years--not more than that, not less than that. We know our States need those expenditures. Let the President veto the bill if that is his decision. Then let's override it here and in the House and then it becomes law. Then those 475,000 Americans who are either drawing unemployment benefits--or many of them, I believe, have probably exhausted their unemployment benefits; just this week we found the Senate unwilling to provide an extension of those benefits--can go back to work in construction jobs and related jobs. This bill more than anything we have done in tax adjustments will put Americans to work--now, this summer, right away--when they need work. We can't turn our back on that opportunity and that responsibility. Let's make the system work the way it is supposed to work. Let's pass this bill. Let's get it to the White House. Let's take it back and do what is necessary to make it law. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, at that same time, where there is $39 billion around somewhere for giant corporations and wealthy investors who do not need it, there is not a willingness to provide even in 6 years the promised 40-percent level for students with special needs. It is not that we do not have the money; we do not have the right priorities; we do not have the will. It is terribly unfair for us to be telling the school districts they have to run tests every year and include children with special needs and be measured and publicized and in some cases publicly embarrassed because they are not making acceptable progress toward goals that have been established when we do not provide the money to enable them to do it. Shame on us, not them. It is irresponsible and it is inexcusable. This money is badly needed in Minnesota, and I assume elsewhere in the country. In terms of reform, the paperwork that burdens the reporting requirements is driving Minnesota teachers out of special education and out of the classroom entirely. Those who remain spend less than half of their time actually working with students because they are so busy filling out the forms the Federal Government has imposed on them, as well as some by the State and the school districts for sure. I commend Senator Santorum for offering a pilot program for 15 States, but it is the job of the Senate to determine those reforms. I have heard for over 3 years the reason we are not providing money for special education is because we have to ``reform it first''. So now we are passing a bill that has minimal reforms and a pilot program and no additional money. I think it is a terrible disservice to No Child Left Behind, which is being proven once again to be a nice phrase but with no real meaning or commitment behind it. I think we will regret that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to conclude my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has been such a dedicated champion for the needs of special education throughout the country for all these years. I wish his dedication was reflected fully in this legislation on which we are going to be voting shortly. In an era when we are talking so much about accountability in education, the teachers, administrators, and local school boards throughout our country who are supposed to be accountable for results, for ``making acceptable progress'' and improving student test scores, we, too, in the Senate have a role and responsibility to aid and assist them in making that progress. I regrettably believe this legislation falls seriously short of our responsibility to them and to the students they are helping and supporting and without our full involvement and aid are less likely to succeed. In this important area of special education, we in the Senate, the Congress, and the Federal Government have very special responsibilities because it was Congress who established these rights for every American child to a quality public education a quarter century ago and mandated every school district with the responsibility to provide it. I was not here when that legislation passed, but its language implied that schools would be reluctant, perhaps even resistant, to assume their responsibilities. That was over a quarter century ago. I speak from my personal knowledge about Minnesota, and I assume it is true throughout our country, our public schools, our teachers, administrators, support personnel, and policymakers are the legislation's allies. In Minnesota, our educators are fully committed and deeply dedicated to providing the best possible special education to every student with special needs and in fact every student who comes through their doors. They are doing so, as I have personally witnessed in hundreds of special education classes throughout Minnesota, with amazing skills, heart-warming personal devotion and often extraordinary success. They are doing so increasingly in spite of, not because of, the Senate. This legislation fails our responsibility to the students of this Nation with special needs, to their dedication and to their cause, which is our cause. Yesterday an amendment failed which would have fulfilled in 6 years a promise the U.S. Congress made over a quarter century ago when it passed the initial legislation to fund 40 percent of the costs of special education. In the year 2001, when we had all of these surpluses we were told would exist throughout the decade, the Senate did pass such an amendment, but the House of Representatives and the administration refused to accept it and so it was not put into that law. I have tried 5 times in the last 3 years, with amendments, to have us realize our long-broken promise in 1 year, in a succeeding fiscal year, and those amendments have failed. I was shocked and appalled that this body rejected Senator Harkin's amendment to bring us up to that promised 40-percent level in 6 years. Today it is less than half of that promise. That cost Minnesota schools $250 million a year. That is money that is badly needed to fulfill their responsibilities to children with special needs and it is money then that often has to be taken out of regular school programs because they have a legal responsibility and liability to provide those special education services. So it means all of the students in Minnesota get shortchanged because this Senate will not keep its promise. The majority decided to provide an additional $39 billion over the next 10 years in tax advantages to companies for their foreign operations, tax preferences to expand their foreign businesses and take more jobs away from the United States and put them overseas. That was deemed worthy of $39 billion.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I congratulate and honor my friend, Betty Benjamin from Minneapolis, who last Saturday celebrated her 80th birthday. She has lived an extraordinary and outstanding 80 years. Raised on a farm near Redwood Falls, MN, Betty studied social work at Hamline University, where she met her future husband, Robert Benjamin, a pre-med student from Pipestone, MN. During the mid- to late 1960s, Betty was busy raising her family, but somehow she found time to become a committed leader in the local movement to reform the existing abortion laws. Recognizing her determination and natural leadership, her friends and colleagues asked her to become the president of two women's organizations; the Edina League of Women Voters and the Minnesota Organization for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. The latter organization later became the Minnesota Chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League. When Betty became the leader of Minnesota's pro-choice community, abortion was an illegal procedure. Driven by her professional experience as a social worker and her deeply held belief that women should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their own bodies and lives, Betty was committed to see the abortion laws repealed. With her family by her side, Betty dedicated everything to the movement--her time, her energy, and even her home. To save valuable resources, the organization met in a spare room at the Benjamins' house in suburban Minneapolis for more than 5 years. Opening her home to other abortion rights advocates allowed Betty to stay connected to the statewide, grassroots organizing plan she shaped. At one point, Betty organized a Board of Directors that featured a resident from each of Minnesota's 67 legislative districts. Most importantly, making the organization's base of operations her home enabled Betty to be a loving and devoted mother. And what a role model she was to her three children! Day after day, she demonstrated the values of hard work and persistence and that one person can truly make an imprint on social policy. While the organization eventually outgrew the Benjamins' spare room, Betty has never outgrown the organization and the fight. A steady source of inspiration and encouragement to all in the movement, Betty continues to serve on the Minnesota NARL Foundation Board of Directors. At 80 years of age, Betty's activism and passion still spill out of the boardroom and onto the streets. Two weeks ago, she flew from Minneapolis to Washington, DC, to participate in the largest march ever for women's reproductive rights. Once again, she stood strong with her fellow Americans, this time over a million, to protect the rights she fought to secure for women more than 30 years ago. I stand here on the Senate floor today to honor Mrs. Betty Benjamin on her 80th birthday and to thank her for her continued commitment and dedication. May God grace us with her presence and her passion for many years to come.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to conclude my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I was present for the concluding remarks of the majority leader regarding the atrocities committed in Iraq against the prisoners there. I certainly share his sentiments. A number of my colleagues have spoken today from both sides of the aisle expressing their horror, their outrage, and their deep regret. I join with them as well. I also am deeply disturbed as a Senator and as a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee at the lack of communication from the military and the civilian command to those Members of the Senate about these incidents--in fact, right up to the moment they were disclosed to the American people through, fortunately, a free and vigilant press. According to the information I have been able to obtain, a copy of the most recently referenced classified internal military report, and other news reports about that and other information, many of these incidents that have been under investigation occurred last October, last November--in other words, over half a year ago. They are horrible events. The report said that Iraqi prisoners had been victims of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses. They were beaten with broom handles and chairs and threatened with rape. One prisoner was sodomized with a chemical light stick or with a broomstick. Military dogs were also used to frighten and intimidate detainees. One graphic description in the New York Times today talks about the experience of a particular Iraqi male, the deep humiliation and shame he still feels, the utter degradation, the sadistic and disgusting abuse of him night after night by his American captors. I agree with the remarks of the majority leader that these people carrying out these terrible deeds were few in number, but tragically their impact is enormous. They are going to make life a lot more difficult and a lot more dangerous for the 134,000 incredibly brave, patriotic Americans who are over there putting their lives on the line every day and night. A story in the New York Times gives a sense of how this is affecting the way the United States is viewed in the Arab world, saying in the Arab world and beyond, the tormenting of Iraqi prisoners by their American guards shredded already thin support for Washington's invasion of Iraq and its vow to install democratic values and respect for human rights. The outrage over the abuse shown in pictures flashed across front pages and television screens drew emotional comparisons, asking how the American occupation of the country could be distinguished from the way Saddam Hussein's government oppressed the ordinary Iraqis. This kind of outrage will lead to more attacks against our forces, greater intensity of attacks, more bombing and assassination attempts against our forces and other representatives, more casualties, more men and women from America dying, shedding blood as a result of this immoral and illegal misconduct. The U.S. military, according to this report, first became aware of these incidents, or some of them, as early as January of this year; in fact, maybe even sooner than that. It was January 19 that LTG Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of the joint task force in Iraq, requested that these incidents of last October, November, and December be investigated. There was a preliminary report which indicated systemic problems within the prison brigade and suggested a lack of clear standards, proficiency, and leadership. That investigation began then on January 24. It was carried out through interviews and other investigations of both Iraqi prisoners, former prisoners, and U.S. military personnel who had witnessed these incidents. On February 29, the executive summary was presented to the military command; on March 19, the final written report. The outbrief to the appointing authority took place on March 3, 2004. That is 2 months ago, and actually the 2 months preceding that, various people in the chain of command were aware of these incidents. They must have recognized the enormous impact they would have, the devastating effect they would have upon our situation in that country, militarily, diplomatically, and in our relations with other countries throughout the world. Yet as far as I have been told, not one word--not one word, literally, was communicated to anyone in the Senate, Democrat or Republican. We had, in fact, a briefing last Thursday afternoon, a top-secret classified briefing, which was attended, as I recall, by about 40 to 45 Members of the Senate with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That briefing occurred 2, 3 hours before the ``60 Minutes II'' report which disclosed these incidents and this report. Not one word--not one word--was mentioned to any of us. I have been in briefings as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee through the last weeks and months where we have asked, time after time: What is going on? What is the progress? What is the lack of progress? Where are the problems? What is occurring? Not a word about this. Not a word, until it occurred, of the eruption of violence, the intensification of violence, in key areas of Iraq over the last several weeks, which caused, in April, the highest level of casualties since the war began. We ask, again and again: What is going on? And we are told: Everything is fine. We are making great progress. As early as last August, we were told 95 percent of the country is peacefully progressing. Everything is going well. And we find out, through news reports or through the reality of events, that is not the case. There is no credibility. The American people are not being told the facts and the truth. The U.S. Congress is not being told the facts and the truth. We deserve the facts and the truth. I do not know who knew what at what point in time up through this chain of command. But I believe we have the responsibility and the right to find out. We are going to have, I am told, the opportunity, in the Senate Armed Services Committee, to meet with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld this Friday morning. I certainly--and I know others, too--will be asking for that sequence of events and asking why it is that we are not told relevant information, crucial information that affects the conditions over there, the progress or lack thereof, that then, in turn, affects the lives, the safety, the well-being of the men and women who are serving over there heroically, and whose families are waiting back in my State of Minnesota and across this country, frantically, anxiously, wondering what their future is going to be, wondering if they are going to return home alive safely. We were elected in a democratic process by those men and women, their families, to be here to look out for them, to ask questions about what is going on, to be given the information about what is occurring, so we can participate in decisions that are going to affect U.S. policies that are going to determine the outcome of their lives--when they will be home, whether they will come home. I think the people at various levels who participated in this investigation--I am not going to call it a coverup because there was an ongoing investigation, but, my goodness, for the last 2 months, when it was completed, and we were not informed, it was not being reported. If not covered up, it was being hidden from Congress. I am going to ask those individuals to read or reread the United States Constitution and refresh their understanding of what it means to be in a constitutionally established democracy where the executive branch and the legislative branch have coequal responsibilities. I certainly would like to work with Members of both sides of the aisle in regard to the authorization of military----

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I would like to work with Members of both sides of the aisle to put in place language, in the military authorization and in any supplemental requests that are going to be made, that we be given full and necessary disclosure, the same way we require corporations that are making stock offerings to inform their investors, the same way we require corporations and those running them to inform their boards of directors of relevant, critically important information that has a material bearing on the information that is being presented so they can make informed decisions. We are getting far less than that. We are being asked to make informed decisions when we are not being given the information, we are not being told the truth. We are having vital, important information withheld. That has to stop. We need to disclose what has occurred in these incidents. We need to make sure they never happen again. And we need to make sure that we in Congress are given the opportunity that we deserve, the right that we have, to look out on behalf of the American people to make sure they never occur again. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I certainly support the statement of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. Amendment No. 3112 Mr. President, we are referring to the JOBS Act, and to Senator Graham's excellent amendment. I am very proud to be a cosponsor and to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Graham-Dayton amendment. As Senator Graham pointed out to our colleagues, this bill is called the JOBS Act. In fact, in the House, they call it the American JOBS Act because, as we all know, we are missing a lot of jobs in America today. Over 8 million Americans are out of work. Many have exhausted their unemployment benefits because they cannot find work anywhere. This amendment offered by Senator Graham would make the bill live up to its name. You could call it the ``Put the Jobs Into the JOBS Act'' amendment. It also would put the truth into that title. Because the truth now is most of this bill has nothing to do with providing jobs-- at least not American jobs. It provides additional tax cuts to already profitable corporations, whether they provide jobs or not. According to a recent Washington Post article on the bill, it is: One of the most complex, special-interest riddled corporate tax bills in years, lawmakers, Senate aides, and tax lobbyists say. The 930 page epic is packed with $170 billion in tax cuts aimed at cruise ship operators, foreign dog-race gamblers, NASCAR track owners, bow-and-arrow makers, and Oldsmobile dealers, to name a few. Continuing on to quote the article: Even one of the tax lobbyists involved in drafting it conceded that the bill ``has risen to a new level of sleaze.'' I think that is quite instructive in its statement: ``even one of the tax lobbyists involved in drafting it.'' I am not on the Senate Finance Committee. I am told that committee, as the Appropriations Committee, requires many years of seniority before someone can gain access to it, so I don't know what goes on in the drafting of legislation. But when the article says tax lobbyists were involved in drafting the bill that is before us or, as my colleague Senator Graham said, drafting the additions to this bill that are not before us, that are in the so- called managers' amendments which are not disclosed to those of us voting, which are not disclosed to the American people, then there is something pretty putrid in that process. In fact, the provisions the article mentions, questionable as they are, are not even the worst provisions in the legislation. This bill contains over $39 billion worth of tax advantages to American businesses and investors for their foreign operations. At a time when we say we are concerned about losing American jobs to foreign businesses,--and we should be concerned; we should be alarmed--this bill would make it more profitable and thus more appealing to expand foreign businesses instead of ones in the United States. Why in the world would we want to do that? Most of these provisions are rich man's tax avoidance games and gimmicks. For example, U.S. businesses or individuals can claim a tax credit under U.S. taxes equal to any foreign taxes they have paid. A tax credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of the tax that is owed. So this arrangement means the U.S. Treasury gets paid last. If some company here owes the French Government $100 in taxes and the U.S. Government $150 in taxes, the company pays the French Government the $100 it owes and it only pays the U.S. Government $50. If foreign taxes were treated as a business expense, like any other cost of doing business, the loss to the U.S. Treasury would be far less severe. But this bill goes even further in the other direction. This would allow the company or business or the individual to be able to use those foreign tax credits for 20 years into the future in order to reduce their future U.S. taxes owed. Most U.S. citizens can't do that. A farmer with additional revenues, profits in a good year, a salesman with high sales and, therefore, high commissions has to pay higher taxes on his or her income for that year. They can't finagle their incomes and expenses over the next 20 years to lower their tax liabilities. As I said, these are rich man's games and gimmicks. The other foreign tax breaks are pretty much the same. They are just more ways to avoid paying U.S. taxes owed on U.S. profits or income, more special treatment for businesses in other countries, employing workers in those other countries, jobs, many of which used to be here in this country for American workers. We are going to reward those actions even more than we have already, at a cost of $39 billion to the U.S. Treasury over the next 10 years, at a time when the Federal Government is running annual deficits of over $500 billion. This bill purports to be revenue neutral. In other words, the tax increases equal or offset the tax reductions. Well, yes and no. As usual around here, with all the smart Members and staffs, and I guess the tax lobbyists who write their special interest tax cuts into the bill, some curious revenue increases are cited. Some are actually good public policy--the elimination of tax shelters, offshore and domestic-- some are questionable. Some of the so-called revenue gains are simply downright curious. For example, over $17 billion of revenue gains is cited from extending customs user fees over the next 10 years. That is something we obviously should do and will do. There are existing fees now, and we will extend them over the life of the 10 years that this is scored for budget purposes. We haven't done it yet. But that is a continuation of the status quo; yet that is being counted as if it were new tax revenue for the purposes of this bill to offset some of these new tax breaks for foreign subsidiaries and operations. We are adding vaccines for hepatitis A to the list of taxable vaccines, $87 million over 10 years. I don't myself understand the reason for that. We are limiting charitable contributions of ``patents or similar property'' to their cost basis to the donor. ``Similar property'' is open to interpretation, but it requires some kind of fairly broad interpretation because the revenue gains expected over the decade are $4 billion. These are charitable contributions. So if an artist, for example, paints a painting, a well-known artist, the cost basis of that actual picture--the materials, the canvas and the paints and the like-- the actual cost of it is quite low. The value of it might be worth tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. The cost basis, if it is just the materials, is going to be a huge disincentive for people who are in that situation to donate their creations, patents to nonprofit charitable organizations. We are going to gain $4 billion from doing that. Another of the revenue gains repeals the 10 percent rehabilitation credit for nonhistoric buildings. That is going to generate $1 billion in revenues. In Minnesota, there aren't many buildings old enough to be ``historic,'' but rehabilitation of other buildings that are dilapidated is certainly a worthwhile public purpose. Yet we are incorporating these kinds of tax increases to offset tax breaks we are providing for foreign business operations. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Senator Graham has discussed very well--and I won't repeat his comments--the advantages of this amendment over the existing bill for creating American jobs, jobs in the United States for American workers. That is what we need. That is what the bill purports to be. That is what we ought to be doing. This bill, as it relates to domestic manufacturers, is a general tax reduction. It requires them to do nothing in return. That is a lot better than providing tax breaks to foreign operations and subsidiaries and the investors in them, but it is not good enough. American businesses reported record profits in the fourth quarter of last year, $76 billion in the quarter, above the previous record profits of $70 billion in the third quarter of last year. Overall corporate profits were up 20 percent last year from the year before. Now we are coming out of a recession. That is great news for America. That is not uniform across the board, but that shows a very healthy profit picture for most American businesses and one that, unfortunately, has not translated into the job increases we would expect to see, given that kind of profitability and coming out of a recession and employment contraction. That is what this bill should be focused on. That is what the Graham amendment does, which is why I am glad to be a cosponsor. It provides incentive and a reward for providing American jobs. If do you that, you get the benefit. If you don't do that, you don't get the benefit because you don't need it right now. Between 1996 and 2000, 71 percent of the foreign companies doing business in the United States reported no U.S. tax liability at all. Sixty-one percent of U.S.-controlled corporations during that time, those 5 years from 1996 to 2000, also reported no U.S. tax liability. In the year 2000, 82 percent of large U.S. corporations reported a U.S. tax liability of less than 5 percent of their income; 76 percent of large foreign-controlled companies reported U.S. tax liability of less than 5 percent of their income. These large corporations are not overtaxed. Some of them are not taxed at all. Now, with these foreign credits that extend forward for 20 years, not only will they not pay taxes, they will be owed rebates. This has to be the theater of the absurd. We are giving away tax revenues for outyears--especially from 2008 to 2013, which is where this bill is backloaded--that we don't have, that we are going to be short of to do the things we have committed to do, that will add up and extend beyond that to a point in time that it will add to the crisis we are going to face in the following decade fiscally. We are doing all that for no reason whatsoever, except that someone said the tax lobbyists have had their field day and they got this riddled into the bill. We are trying to get it out so it can be put to use for the American workers, and especially those who want to be American workers, who don't have jobs and have paid taxes on what they have earned, whatever amount that may be, and are looking for a job and will pay taxes on that. We should not be getting into more tax avoidance schemes to send jobs overseas. That is what the Graham amendment would prevent. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President I have some concerns about the impact of S. 150 that I wish to address to the gentleman from Oregon, the author of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. It is my understanding that S. 150 provides that Internet access services do not include telecommunications services purchased by customers to obtain dial-up access to the Internet. I also understand that S. 150 provides that only telecommunications services purchased or used by the provider of Internet access in providing Internet access are included within the moratorium. Further, I understand that the Internet access moratorium does not apply to the sale or use of telecommunications services that are carried or ``routed'' over the internet that are not purchased or used to provide internet access, for example, services that are comparable to today's circuit switched voice but which are provided over internet protocol. This is often called ``Voice Over Internet Protocol,'' or VOIP. Finally, to the extent that a telecommunications carrier sells both internet access services and telecommunications services, I understand that the charges for internet access are covered by the moratorium subject to the accounting rule covering aggregated charges for internet access and telecommunications services. Am I correct in my analysis of S. 150?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I thank my friend from Nevada for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the amendment being offered by Senator Daschle to the bill before the Senate about the use of ethanol and other renewable fuels. Here we are in the middle of this energy price crisis in our country, when in Minnesota the price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline is almost $2, and in other parts of the country it is as high as $2.50. Possibly it is going higher. I am being asked what are we doing about bringing the price of motor fuel down. I think the honest answer is nothing. There is not a whole lot we can do when we are dependent upon foreign supplies of oil, when we are sending $115 billion a year overseas to buy that product. Senator Daschle's amendment--I give him great credit for every year championing the cause of renewable fuels, with the opportunity that is right before us in America today to shift from foreign oil consumption to using a cleaner burning, lower priced, American-grown, American- produced fuel, not as a substitute for MTBE--the additives to gasoline--but as a substitute for gasoline itself. I know that because I drive all over the State of Minnesota in a Ford Explorer, factory- produced, with a slight modification to the usual engine. It was modified in the factory. I drive on 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline. Today it is 20 cents a gallon cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline. I can get it in most places in Minnesota. We can give the American people a choice to have a homegrown fuel with the money staying in America to benefit our rural economies. We can renew it every year. We know we can produce the amount that will be necessary, and today it will cost 20 to 15 cents a gallon less than regular unleaded gasoline and likely in the future $1 less than the rising cost of gasoline. If we are not going to take any steps to bring about that opportunity, people will think we are out of our minds. I do not understand why the debate today on Senator Daschle's amendment about why do this, or why not do this and even more.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to finish my remarks.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, Senator Daschle has been heroic in my caucus and this body in his support for those who are not in corn- producing States who support ethanol and other renewable fuels, biofuels as products. But this is not just about South Dakota or Minnesota. Yes, it benefits my State. It benefits the farmers of my State. This benefits America. This is the best opportunity in my lifetime to shift our energy consumption from our traditional sources and their costs to something that is American, that is clean, and that is cheaper. I am amazed we are not racing to the stores for that product. We have it. Senator Daschle's amendment will take us in that direction. We should be doing even more than that, but this is an important first step. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, thank you for your indulgence this evening. I, for the last couple of nights, have been reading through much of Bob Woodward's new book, ``Plan Of Attack.'' It provides, believe me, quite an exceptional insight into the timetable and the process by which President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their top advisers secretly planned and then engineered our country and the world into the Iraq war. It is remarkable that virtually every top administration official from the President on down provided so much information to Mr. Woodward, information that they withheld from Congress and from the American people. For example, in the fall of 2002, I sat through several hours of top secret briefings with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and he never told us it was a ``slam-dunk'' that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, as he reportedly said to the President. I guess I am glad he didn't, because he was wrong. I voted against the Iraq resolution that fall because I was not persuaded that Saddam Hussein had or was close to acquiring weapons that threatened the national security of the United States. So I guess I am fortunate that I wasn't slam-dunked. I wasn't, either, at the September 26, 2002, meeting which President Bush reportedly, according to Mr. Woodward, had with 18 Members of the House of Representatives. In the book, the President is quoted as saying--Mr. Woodward says initially: Putting the most dire spin on the intelligence he, the President, said ``It is clear he, Saddam Hussein, has weapons of mass destruction, anthrax, VX. He still needs plutonium. The timeframe would be 6 months for Iraq having a nuclear weapon if they could obtain sufficient plutonium or enriched uranium. That was a significantly shorter timetable than anything that was represented to me in any of the briefings that I attended, even under those circumstances of procuring from the outside, weapons materials. Then the President went to the Rose Garden and said to the assembled press corps, and therefore to the Nation and the world: The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, and, according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order was given. That is an alarming statement, coming from a President of the United States, a statement likely to frighten a great many Americans and also pressure a great many Members of Congress that Iraq was, right then and there, an urgent and immediate threat to our national security. Mr. Woodward goes on to say that the CIA Director and others had warned the British not to make that allegation, which was based on a questionable source and almost certainly referred to battlefield weapons, not ones that Iraq could launch even at neighboring countries, let alone American cities. He quotes the Director of the CIA as referring privately to this as: . . . they-can-attack-in-45-minutes shit. I know one of my Senate colleagues who has said that he based his vote in support of the war resolution on that stated threat, and the peril, if true, in which it would have placed coastal cities in his State--if true. Of course it was true if the President, the President of the United States, said so to the American people from the White House, with Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, standing right behind him. They presumably also believed in the President, that he was speaking the truth--a truth that perhaps only he could know. And surely, certainly, if he happened to misspeak, someone in the administration who knew otherwise, especially the person in charge of our national intelligence agency, would make sure the necessary correction would be issued quickly so as not to mislead anyone or everyone. But that wasn't done. That is just one example of the misuse of prewar intelligence by the Bush administration. But in that instance the President himself and the commission the President appointed to look into the intelligence failures, if there were, or successes leading up to and through the Iraqi war, that commission will not be looking into that use or misuse of intelligence information by the administration officials because the President's directive does not permit them to do so. If anybody in this body needs sufficient cause to insist upon, as members of my caucus have for many months now, a truly independent commission, one with full authority to investigate whatever its members determine warrants their investigation so that we all can know the truth and the full truth about who had what information and who used what information truthfully or untruthfully and, therefore, led us into that war, if they need sufficient cause, this book certainly provides it. It is clear to me, however--I say this very reluctantly--that the administration won't provide us with the truth themselves--perhaps only part of it through Mr. Woodward. I regret to say I am convinced that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't require the administration to do so. Instead, it is hunkered down, admitting no mistakes, acknowledging no difficulty, keeps spinning the party line about how well everything is going in Iraq, how much better and safer the Iraqi people are, we are, and the world is as a result of this war. That is what we have been told repeatedly and emphatically in every Senate Armed Services Committee meeting I have attended and in every secret and top secret briefing I received. And in the now dwindling number of real opportunities to question the administration's decisions about what is going on in Iraq, we get instead the party line about what they want us to know--what they won't tell us because they don't want us to know. What they tell us is usually contradicted as a result of some good investigative journalism. And I thank the Lord for a free and vigilant press in this country. It is just an absolute requirement for successful democracy. Increasingly now what we are finding out is the hard realities--the ugly truths about what really is happening or not happening in Iraq-- grab the headlines and seize our attention and sear our consciences as more and more Americans are dying there, as more and more are wounded, injured, and maimed for life. I have been to the hospitals here. I think most of my colleagues have as well. I have seen lives that have changed forever. And, of course, I have gone to services for those whose lives were ended forever, and those families have to struggle and go on. It is incredible to watch what is going on in Iraq now and see that more and more of our incredibly courageous men and women serving over there are being murdered by the people they saved--the people that the administration with certainty said would support our troops as liberators and not attack them as enemies. What do our incredibly brave American troops over in Iraq need to be able to do the enormous task that was assigned to them? We keep asking that question in Congress. We certainly asked it in the Armed Services Committee. We wanted to provide it. This Congress and the Congress previous to this one--in which I also served--provided the administration with every single dollar it requested for the operation in Iraq, whether it was a regular appropriation, a supplemental appropriation, or emergency supplemental appropriation. I personally voted for every dollar the President said is needed for military supplies and equipment for the Iraqi security force training, for economic development in that country, and for social rehabilitation. My colleague, Senator Coleman, and I added funding that had been overlooked to help pay for those American heroes who are serving over there to travel home to see their families during their 2-week leave in the middle of what has become a 12-month or 18-month or indefinitely extended tours of duty. Senator Bob Graham saw to it that the wounded soldiers wouldn't have to pay for their own hospital meals during their recuperations. Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Tom Daschle tried to extend the health care coverage that is provided to reservists and National Guard men and women and their families to make it year round, since their service in certainly incredibly increasing numbers of cases have become year round, and subject to that at a moment's notice. I was a proud cosponsor of that legislation. It was opposed by the administration. Despite that opposition, last year we were partially successful, and we are going to be trying to accomplish the rest this year. Most of my caucus and quite a number of my Republican colleagues have also voted several times to restore the funding cuts that the administration proposed for the VA health system which is even now seriously overloaded. When with no forewarning and apparently with very little foreknowledge, heavy fighting escalated from where it was before in Iraq and erupted where it was not before; when American forces are suffering their highest casualties in the years since President Bush flew onto the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed ``mission accomplished;'' when 20,000 of our troops, our constituents, the families in our States were told they were literally packing up and heading for home, and then told they must stay for an indefinitely extended period; then we in the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting this week are told by the Deputy Secretary of Defense that ``the increase in violence was not entirely unexpected;'' it is hard to reconcile what has occurred. Just 3 weeks earlier--just hours, in fact, before the four American contractors were ambushed and massacred and then part of hell broke loose over there--those expectations were not mentioned in a briefing we attended. They weren't even suggested. When I made that point--I didn't ask in that briefing about Fallujah--well, what about it now? ``Unsettled,'' I was told this week but U.S. forces will soon secure the city. The next morning they published a report that a: Senior American officer in Fallujah was quoted as saying ``We have the potential to turn it into the Alamo, if we get it wrong.'' The Alamo? That was pretty unsettling, as I recall from my history books, and it kept getting worse thereafter. Again at a hearing, I queried that there have been reports that Iraqi forces which we have been paying $1 billion through supplemental appropriations to supposedly train and equip so they can fight and protect their own country and our men and women can come home, there were reports some of them in the last couple of weeks--many of them-- would not fight, that they ran away and even left our guns and equipment to be used by the insurgents to try to kill our own forces. How many did so? In other words, how effective has our training been? Didn't know. Estimated maybe 5 to 10 percent. That very night I read in an article I overlooked in a morning paper, that same day an American general who was in Iraq put the percentage of Iraqi forces who failed to fight at 40 percent; 40 percent of our supposed allies were not allies when needed and 40 percent of our equipment is being used against our own troops. The question I most want to be answered is, What is your current timetable for bringing our troops home? They are showing a big chart at the hearing for the timetable of the transfer of political responsibilities and government authority. It is quite detailed. It went through 2004, 2005, and into 2006. What, then, I asked, is the timetable for the transition of military responsibility to the Iraqis? No answer, not even in the closed session following. What is the United States force level now projected in 6 months, in 12 months in Iraq? No answer. Surely these projections are being made. Nobody likes to predict in public what the uncertain future might hold, but we have a right to know. More importantly, the American people have a right to know. These are their sons and daughters over there on the orders of their Commander in Chief and they deserve to be told the truth. We are not even being told how much money the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan is expected to cost in the next fiscal year, which starts in 5 months. We cannot even find out when the $87 billion we appropriated last October will run out. That is ridiculous. After all, whose money is it? Whose Government is it? It is our Government, all of us here and all of the American people, we are all in this together for better or for worse. We will pay for it or avoid paying for it together. We will benefit from an improved world or suffer from the reported unprecedented Arab hatred toward America. We will do that together. Our lives and our children's lives, our beloved Nation's future, will all be affected for many years profoundly by what is being done in our names and by the results and consequences that have occurred. Please, tell the truth, Mr. President, the real truth, the whole truth, and we will face it together. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted the time necessary to make my full remarks.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Madam President. I will speak to that motion, please. Madam President, today, we voted actually a second time on that motion to invoke cloture to recommit this pending bill to the Finance Committee--a vote that failed. So, in other words, we essentially voted not to recommit the bill to the committee of origin. I emphasize that fact because in my State of Minnesota Democrats are being accused of blocking action on this bill. That simply is not true. We are ready and willing to act on this legislation right now, in fact, as we were last week before it was pulled off the floor by the Republican leader. So people watching might ask themselves, why was it pulled back then? Why have we been faced with these repeated attempts to send the bill back to committee? The reason is because the Republican caucus does not want to have to vote on the pending amendment, which is the Harkin amendment, which would protect the rights to overtime pay for some 8 million Americans--police officers, firefighters, nurses, laborers; hard-working Americans who want to continue to receive overtime pay when they work their extra hours, whether it be for the sake of public safety, whether it is needed to fill shifts on hospital wards in order to keep them open to patients, or whether it is in order to earn extra income to improve their own lives and the lives of their families. These 8 million Americans are not asking for any special favors, such as are provided in the underlying bill. They are not trying to get special tax breaks or avoid paying taxes on their foreign income, as are the beneficiaries of the underlying bill. They simply want to be able to earn the American dream, by working harder, by working longer hours, paying their taxes but then coming out ahead because of the overtime provisions. But this administration has said no, the same administration that wants to eliminate taxes on so-called unearned income, dividend income. They settled for cutting the rate in half but wanted to eliminate it initially. In other words, they want to make not working more lucrative and also want to make working harder less lucrative. Now, what kind of family value is that? You work more and you earn less because the Bush administration cares more about the corporations that want to add to their profits by paying their workers less money. That is why they moved millions of American jobs overseas. That is why they have eliminated millions of American jobs. Madam President, 8.5 million of our fellow Americans are out of a job today. And now these same corporations, which have, by the way, been enjoying record high-profit increases in each of the last 2 years, want to make even more money by paying less money to the people who are still working. And the administration is going to help them do it. In fact, the Secretary of Labor unilaterally, by herself, revoked the overtime benefit protections for 8 million Americans. We, their elected representatives, are not even being allowed to vote on that matter to express our approval or disapproval--in this case, my strong disapproval--of that revocation of their overtime benefit protections. Why not? Why can't we vote on protecting 8 million American workers? Well, the Republican Conference leader said: Where is the discernible gain to our Members from voting on this and other Democratic amendments? I don't know about the gain to colleagues who don't want to support overtime pay, but I will tell you about the gain or the loss to those 8 million American workers, depending on whether this measure passes or fails. That is their overtime pay that has been taken away by the unilateral action of the Secretary of Labor. That is their earned income that has been taken away. That is their new home, their college education, family vacation, prescription drugs they need to buy for elderly relatives. We in the U.S. Senate are being denied even the right to vote because it is politically inconvenient for some of the Republican caucus. There is also a huge gain or loss for millions of other Americans who are out of work by the fate of another Democratic amendment to extend unemployment benefits to the 1.1 million Americans who have exhausted theirs at the present time. That number includes an estimated 20,000 of my fellow Minnesotans. They are also hard-working men and women who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs and have been looking for work and unable to find it in the terrible jobs climate of the last couple years. Two-thirds of those out-of-work adults have children. An estimated 622,000 children are affected in those families that have exhausted their unemployment benefits. When that happens, it is estimated that over two-thirds of those families lose their health coverage, so the children do not have health care coverage any longer. Over half those families, it is estimated, fall below the poverty level as a result of losing their unemployment benefits. It is unbelievably heartless and cruel to deny them this extension. Yet again we are unable to get a vote in the Senate on extending unemployment benefits to those Americans. Since we are unable to get these votes on our amendments to this JOBS Act, you might ask yourself, what is so precious about this bill, what is so perfect about it that the leader is denying us a chance to change it in any way? You would naturally assume that because it is called the JOBS bill, it is about actually providing jobs to fellow Americans, but that is not the case. This is about providing $114 billion in tax breaks to large and mostly profitable American corporations, to very wealthy American investors. Thirty-nine billion of these tax breaks would go to their foreign business operations to allow them to reduce taxes paid in this country on foreign profits, to allow them to postpone the payment on earned income abroad; in other words, to provide them with additional tax breaks for expanding their foreign business operations and providing jobs overseas. Some of those jobs might in fact be American jobs taken away from people in this country and sent elsewhere or they might be jobs that are going to be created through an expanded business operation that could have been created here in the United States except for the advantages of doing so elsewhere--meaning again that foreign workers get those jobs rather than Americans at a time when we have 8.5 million Americans who are out of work and another million and a half Americans who are so-called marginally attached to the labor force, who have given up looking for work, and another 4.5 million Americans who are working part time not by choice but because it is the only work they can find. In other words, over 10 percent of our workforce is either unemployed or underemployed right now, and we are providing foreign tax breaks worth $39 billion, additional foreign tax breaks, in this measure to these companies or to the investors in them. I will have an amendment I will offer that would address this matter and take these foreign tax breaks out of the bill, because if we are going to provide tax incentives, as other parts of the bill do, let's at least provide those incentives to American companies for producing jobs in the United States. Let's tie every single one of the tax advantages in this legislation to the provision of new jobs, ideally manufacturing jobs but provable new or additional jobs in the United States to Americans now, not as the measure provides for tax breaks that are going to accelerate in the years 2009 to 2012. Those are not going to result in the creation of new jobs in this country now. We are giving tax advantages to companies, some of which can certainly benefit from it, but many have been part of the 20-percent increases in corporate profitability in each of the last 2 years. I am glad American corporations are profitable. We need them to be profitable in order to create jobs. But the fact is that at least in the manufacturing sector--and up until now in just about any other sector--improved profitability has not resulted in new job creation in the last couple of years. It didn't result in new job creation last month. So if we are going to provide tax reductions for U.S. manufacturing companies or anyone else, let's make darn sure those reductions are going to result in jobs, the creation of new jobs or the adding of jobs where formerly people had been laid off or cut back. Let's translate those tax breaks into what this bill calls itself, a JOBS Act, jobs for Americans. Finally, I want to address the fact that as part of this gambit today to supposedly recommit the bill to the committee where it already was referred out, one of the ways in which we were supposedly going to be induced to do so was some part of the former Energy bill, we were told, was going to be added to the bill that reappeared out of the Finance Committee. I appreciate very much the work that has been done by that committee, in particular by Chairman Grassley of Iowa, who has been stalwart in terms of providing additional tax incentives for energy production, particularly the biofuels, ethanol, and biodiesel fuels. He was instrumental also in changing the formula on the highway trust fund that penalized States such as Minnesota for their ethanol consumption. I would like to join with the majority leader and others who would like to advance this Energy legislation forward. Since the bill was not recommitted to the Finance Committee, I have drafted an amendment I intend to introduce to add some of the energy provisions to the pending bill, ones that would reinstate the renewable fuels standard Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, was instrumental in adding and keeping through the conference committee a year ago, legislation to expand the American consumption of ethanol and biodiesel fuels over the next 10 years, the electric reliability section, which is beneficial to smaller utilities throughout Minnesota and elsewhere in the Nation, and then the package of tax incentives which Chairman Grassley, ranking member Baucus, and others voted out of the Senate Finance Committee that provide alternative fuel incentives, the small ethanol producer tax credit, the tradability of these credits by those co-ops and others that otherwise can't take advantage of them, the tax credit for biodiesel that parallels the credit provided for ethanol production. These are important measures that would do what the bill itself purports to do, which is to add jobs and provide enormous economic benefits to a State such as Minnesota, to farmers in terms of income, to the production plants for ethanol and biodiesel fuels. Those are real jobs amendments, real jobs provisions, those that are going to provide tax credits for business activities, those that are going to result directly in additional jobs for America and in an alternative fuel for America that can reduce our dependence on foreign oil; that can take some of the $115 billion a year we send out of the country to foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to import foreign oil into this country; $115 billion that, if it were going into the pockets of American farmers and multiplying those dollars throughout communities, would result in an economic revitalization of rural America the likes of which we have not seen in decades and which we couldn't create any other way, not through all the Government programs you want to imagine, just through the free market, through increased profitability for American agriculture, through the creation of cleaner burning fuels that are available right now and could be produced right now in quantities to significantly replace the gasoline that is consumed all over this country. That is a real jobs amendment, one I will be introducing and hope we can consider as part of the JOBS Act, so we can make that bill live up to its name, one that will actually provide jobs for Americans rather than corporate tax giveaways for those who don't need them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague on the success of his two teams, both of which were truly outstanding. I particularly commend his women's basketball team because before their showdown with Tennessee, they beat an outstanding team from the University of Minnesota, which reached the semifinals and the final four for the first time in the team's history and was lead by two outstanding players, Lindsay Whalen from Minnesota and Janel McCarville from the neighboring State of Wisconsin, but we have adopted her as a Minnesotan now, and the two of them have achieved the distinction of being Kodak all-Americans. They led the team, which gave us enormous pride in Minnesota, until they met an outstanding Connecticut team. And they had an excellent game on Sunday night, which, unfortunately, from our standpoint, went Connecticut's way. But the Senator certainly has two teams of which to be very proud. I also might note, as the Senator from Connecticut knows because we have had the occasion to be at the White House together, President Bush has very graciously the last years that I have been there invited the winners of the women's and men's basketball championships and the winners of the men's and women's hockey national championships to the White House for a ceremony. I am pleased to say I will be joining the Senator from Connecticut again this year because the University of Minnesota women's hockey team won the national championship the weekend before and, in fact, the University of Minnesota-Duluth men's hockey team is in the chosen four which begins this Thursday night. So I am very hopeful we will have only Senators from two States attending that ceremony from Connecticut in basketball and Minnesota in hockey. But in either event, thanks to the outstanding performance of the Minnesota women's hockey team, which I must acknowledge as a Yale graduate defeated Harvard 6 to 2 in the finals, much to my enormous satisfaction, but just had a terrific year, it was rated No. 1 throughout the year and prevailed in the national championship. It shows, as the Senator noted, women's basketball is the same as women's hockey. Under the auspices of title IX and the opportunities now that have been given to women athletes starting as young girls, they have equal opportunity to play these sports. Their talents and skills are every bit as good as men's, and they are phenomenal athletes and delights to watch as they play these games with the highest level of proficiency. It is something that as Americans we should be proud of, the fact that we have made that advance and that girls are no longer relegated to being cheerleaders for men's sports or boys' sports, as they were when I was growing up, but now have shown themselves to be remarkable athletes in their own right far advanced to anything that I could have accomplished as a meager athlete back in my day. So I will see the Senator at the White House.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague. I think we are in a position where we can come to an agreement on that. I am not sure many of our colleagues would agree, but the Senator is right. In fact, I read over the weekend that the women's semifinal basketball games outdrew the men's in the national televised audience. That is not to say anything disparaging about the men because they had an outstanding tournament as well. It shows the popularity of the sport among all Americans. Certainly, the skill level to which it is played is something that anybody, even a couch potato like this Senator, can enjoy. The Senator is right, also, that the President has been extremely gracious in hosting these teams. I think he recognizes how much of a thrill it is for the teams that have dedicated themselves all year to this level of national proficiency to be able to be recognized by the President of the United States; it is a great achievement for all of them. I look forward to the President's invitation. He has been very gracious in the past, and I look forward to joining my friend, the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to express, on my behalf and that of my colleague and certainly the people of Minnesota, my gratitude to the Senator from Iowa, chairman of the Finance Committee, our distinguished neighbor to the south, for his phenomenal efforts in changing the ethanol penalty in the highway trust fund formula that will provide enormous benefit in the Senate bill to Minnesota and to his own State of Iowa. I have also been working with my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, to try to do our best in our small way to support that effort and to be vigilant on the floor with regard to our caucuses. I certainly want to give credit where credit is due to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee for using his leadership position, and it is an enormous benefit to the State of Minnesota. I express my gratitude and the gratitude of all Minnesotans to the Senator from Iowa for his initiative and leadership.