Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to make a few observations with regard to the Kennedy amendment to require a new national intelligence estimate on the situation in Iraq. I very much appreciate the efforts of Senator Roberts and Senator Stevens to work with Senator Kennedy to improve his original amendment, and I think the language that we have agreed to is a big improvement over the original proposal. I do want to share with my colleagues, however, a concern I have about what we are asking for here. As everyone in this Chamber knows, we have had a big debate over the last few years about whether the intelligence on Iraq was ``politicized'' as we approached the decision whether to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in 2003. A large part of that debate has turned on whether the National Intelligence Estimate that was submitted to Congress by the intelligence community on October 1, 2002, was balanced and complete. It is important to recall that the October 1, 2002, National Intelligence Estimate was demanded by Members of Congress in September of 2002. The record demonstrates that the Director of Central Intelligence asked for more time to complete the estimate, and the Members of Congress who wanted to see that estimate said no. Certainly the pressure from Congress to produce that document very quickly contributed to whatever problems have subsequently been identified in that estimate. A lesson that can be drawn from this experience is that it is not just executive branch officials who are in a position to politicize or degrade the quality of intelligence. Members of Congress can do so as well if they are sloppy in the way they press for information, ask biased questions, or don't allow enough time for the intelligence professionals to do their work carefully. In light of this experience, I would hope that if the Kennedy amendment is enacted into law, the Director of National Intelligence will not feel pressured to reach some of the judgments that some supporters of the amendment clearly want him to reach. Instead, our intelligence professionals should take their time, work hard, and articulate conclusions that represent their best judgment about the situation in Iraq. There simply is too much at stake to permit the work of our intelligence professionals to be politicized at this late date.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, while we are all on the Senate floor, everyone knows the business we have before us before we begin our recess, and part, I think, of what we see rise here is we have a lot to do in a short period of time. All the business is very important. Indeed, people have been very cooperative. We were allowed to go to the Department of Defense appropriations bill by unanimous consent on Wednesday night or Tuesday--was it Tuesday night? We all agreed to go to the bill. We have had a good debate and a fair number of amendments. Now it is almost 7 o'clock and the business we need to do is the Department of Defense appropriations. We do have the trifecta bill which, as everybody knows, by normal procedure will be tomorrow morning--we will agree upon a time, an hour after we come in, but we can agree to do that at 9:30. It is normal procedure. Then we do have to deal with pensions. We know how important it is to get that done before we leave. The Democratic leader mentioned trying to do something with extenders. I think we made good progress. We have some pending amendments. I wouldn't put it out of the realm--but I would like to hear the Democratic leader's response--if we worked hard for the next 4, 5 hours and really plowed through the amendments, that we could even finish the appropriations bill and tonight go to the trifecta bill, dispose of that--however the votes fall--and we all know that will be very close. Then immediately deal with the pensions bill tonight. Then we would have everything done. I know probably the response will be that there is no way to finish the Department of Defense appropriations bill, given the long list of the amendments we referred to, although if we did stay here and spend 5 hours, 6, 7 hours or 3 hours, 4 hours and just plowed through the amendments and addressed them, finish that--this has to be done by unanimous consent--go to the trifecta bill, go t pensions, and then go home. I would be interested in the Democratic leader's response.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, while we are talking about it, we will be out for, I guess, 4 weeks and then Labor Day, and we will come back that Tuesday. Again, I haven't talked with the chairman or ranking member, but does that mean we can finish it late Wednesday night; spend that Tuesday and Wednesday on it?

Mr. FRIST. That just helps clarify so we know what we are working with. I know the chairman wants to make a comment. Right now the way things exist, because I filed cloture last night, we should say right now we will be voting at 9:30 tomorrow morning on trifecta. We still-- and I don't want to close that down--have the option, the opportunity of maybe doing it tonight. We can go back in the cloakroom and talk about what the schedule will be. I will turn to the chairman. I know he wants to make a comment, but let's not close finishing tonight. It would have to be under a very tight agreement of how we complete this Department of Defense bill. This is an absolutely critical bill for this country. I have heard very clearly--and the Democratic leader and I have been talking about it--if we had to put it off and if we can finish it late that Wednesday night is something we can consider. The chairman and ranking member need to think about that. It means we need to continue to work tonight before we do the trifecta.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me just say, if the chairman and the ranking member believe this bill can be finished tonight, even if it takes all night, we ought to finish it tonight. There is no question in terms of the importance of this bill. If it looks as if that is impossible, which we have heard, then we should entertain the proposal put forth by the Democratic leader of finishing Wednesday night. But if there is any way we can finish, I think we should finish tonight. I think everybody would be willing to stay, as it is that important to this country. Again, I just heard the chairman saying we could finish it tonight. It is going to be hard, but if we stay here and literally stay on the floor and march through the amendments with the appropriate debate, then that is what we should do. I don't think we need to make a decision right this second because we can make it among ourselves when we are not before the American people. But if we can finish it, we should finish it.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I believe the various proposals are on the table in terms of how we might spend the next 24 hours. I will talk to the Democratic leader and we can talk to our colleagues. What I would suggest is that we turn the podium and the floor back over to the managers and we proceed with the amendments. I think we have a couple of amendments that are ready to go, and then we will have more to say about the schedule. As it exists right now, unless there is some other agreement, we will be voting on the Family Prosperity Act at around 9:30 in the morning, but we may come to some other agreement in our conversations, and we will continue to vote and keep plowing ahead on this particular bill.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I request to engage Senator Alexander in a colloquy about the costs and methods of managing waste on military bases. I ask my friend if he shares my conclusion that it would be prudent for the Department of Defense to consider a variety of options when dealing with municipal solid waste on military bases. Waste removal currently consumes significant sums of defense spending, and significant cost savings from improved waste management could be applied to critical defense needs. Military bases on islands, where waste is usually removed by barge, suffer acute cost and space challenges. New technologies are giving the Department of Defense better waste management options on military bases and creating new choices to re-use and recycle waste. Currently there is a development project under consideration at Fort Campbell that uses a continuous flow process that recycles 90 percent of municipal solid waste (MSW) without any separation prior to processing. In fact, testing at Fort Campbell in 2001 and Fort Benning 2002 demonstrated the feasibility of the technology and that the process and products made from the derivative from this waste processing technique were safe and highly effective as a soil application at DoD test and training ranges. It is my hope that the Department of Defense will consider this process of managing municipal solid waste as it looks to streamline its operational costs. Does my friend from Tennessee agree with this assessment that the Department of Defense should consider this as an option for waste management?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Lonnie Stubblefield is 17, a recent graduate of Macon County High School in Lafayette, TN. He enjoys Sudoku puzzles and brainteasers--he likes to challenge himself. He doesn't look the part, but he's in the Army now. Zach Khan is 38, a small business owner and an insurance agent. He wanted to do something meaningful in life. He was looking for something with plenty of future opportunities, great benefits, and maybe even a little prestige. He's in the Army now. Linda Yanez is 19, a first generation American with Mexican roots who calls herself ``a small-town girl from the woods.'' She was looking for a way to make ``a difference somewhere to someone.'' She's in the Army now. Jesse Alexander is also 19, a 2003 grad of Maplewood High in Nashville, TN. He's a student majoring in education at Tennessee State University, and works part-time as a security guard. He's earnest, self-disciplined--and he's in the Army now. Why do I mention Lonnie, Zach, Linda, and Jesse? Because they have something in common. Each walked into a local recruiting office in the Volunteer State--Tennessee--and joined America's Volunteer Army. I cannot tell you how very proud I am of them. Soon, they will join the ranks of the many thousands of Tennesseans already risking their lives--day-in and day-out--to defend our freedom. Currently, roughly 14,000 Tennesseans serve in the National Guard. Across the globe, in more than 130 countries, some 247,000 troops and civilians are on the frontline. Every day, they are risking their lives to defend our freedom--and the freedom of the people in whose countries they are stationed. No one would have guessed, almost 5 years ago, now, that we would be free from having suffered another major terrorist attack on our soil. We have been extraordinarily fortunate. And we have been safe because our brave fellow Americans are putting their lives on the line to protect this country. Our troops provide us an invaluable service--fighting daily to defend our priceless ideals. These are young Americans--men and women who have never seen the world. Yet they have the pride and the courage--and most importantly, the faith--to join our military and become our bravest defenders. Mr. President, we owe our troops a debt of honor. For their invaluable service, we owe them the very best resources. And as U.S. Senators, it's our responsibility to provide those resources to them. That is why the bill before us today--the Defense Appropriations bill--is so very important. It provides our soldiers with the resources, training, technology, equipment, and authorities they need to win the global war on terror. From cutting edge technologies to personnel protection systems--the spending bill keeps our military strong so that our men and women in uniform can keep America safe. The bill provides nearly $470 billion in resources for the Department of Defense--funding key readiness programs critical to combating terrorism and enhancing homeland defense. It includes an additional $55 billion in emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--that is, operations related to the global war on terror. And it contains provisions aimed at improving the quality of life of our service members--including a 2.2 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. I am confident that the bill before us today will enable our troops to continue anticipating and meeting the challenges and threats of tomorrow--while maintaining high levels of readiness today. Our brave men and women place their lives at grave risk when they volunteer to join our military and become our Nation's defenders at the frontline. We owe them nothing less than first-class training, the latest in modern technology and equipment, and quality infrastructure. Senators Stevens and Inouye have worked hard to ensure that the bill before us now delivers the funding for the cutting edge resources and service our troops deserve. I thank them for their dedication to seeing this bill through. As we wrap up debate on this bill, I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this bill. I ask them to join me in providing the funding critical to keeping our troops prepared and at the ready. America's security depends on our troops. And our troops are depending on us. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have had a lot of discussion in terms of what the plans would be. We will be proceeding where we can finish the bills, not the Department of Defense appropriations bill tonight, but in all likelihood the other bills. I will propound the unanimous consent request, and then we will lay out the evening. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to H.R. 5970, the Family Prosperity Act, occur following 15 minutes for Senator Grassley, 15 minutes for the Democratic manager, and 15 minutes for each leader; provided further that if cloture is not invoked, the Senate then proceed immediately to the consideration of H.R. 4, the pensions bill, and that there be 20 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders, with no amendments in order to the bill; further, that following the use or yielding back of debate, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage, with no intervening action or debate; further, that it not be in order to consider any conference report on H.R. 2830 during this Congress.

Mr. FRIST. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have made it clear since the outset that our intention was to address the Family Prosperity Act, which are the three bills, which people have been referring to as the ``trifecta,'' unamended and without any attempt to either separate that and add it to the pensions bill. We will proceed as planned, consistent with the unanimous consent request that I outlined. I do object.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will yield to Senator Grassley when he comes. I think that I will go ahead and yield myself time on this bill. We have essentially 30 minutes on either side, of which 15 or 20 minutes of our time will be used by Senator Grassley. We will be voting shortly on what we are calling the Family Prosperity Act. Heretofore, it has been called the trifecta bill because it addresses three different issues that are critically important to the American people. Each of these three bills that have been grouped together to become the Family Prosperity Act are important to hard-working Americans, millions of them. One of the three bills is the permanent tax relief bill. Let me say at the outset that this is a compromise bill that has been put together. We attempted earlier to do something that I strongly believe in, which is totally repealing this unfair and wrongful ``death'' tax. We were unable to do that on the floor of the Senate, and after a lot of discussion between Republicans and Democrats, with the leadership, with Senator Kyl on our side and many Democrats, a bill that is a compromise was put together and is very similar to the bill that is in the Family Prosperity Act. Why is it important? Because this death tax punishes everyday Americans by forcing them to give up their businesses, give up their farms, which their loved ones--dads, moms, and grandparents--have worked hard to pass on to them. It has a direct impact on farming, ranching, construction. All of these bills are labor and capital intensive, but the cost of passing these enterprises on to future generations in one piece is often prohibitive and impossible to do. About 90 percent of family businesses don't survive that third generation. Even those who do manage to pass on their family businesses are adversely affected. Instead of spending money to innovate and grow the business, people have to pay money either to the Federal Government, to accountants and business people to, in some way, try to lessen the burden they would some day have to pay. There are a lot of issues that we have addressed in this body. It is time that we act on this one. Again, it is a compromise that we pulled together. The second aspect of the Family Prosperity Act are some very important tax extenders. There is a list of those that I am sure others will talk about, and one that is of particular interest to me is the sales tax deductibility. In my State of Tennessee, from 1986 to 2004, hard-working Tennesseans were placed at a disadvantage simply because Tennessee was one of seven States that chose to raise revenue primarily through a sales tax instead of an income tax. Thankfully, in 2004, this body, working with President Bush, restored fairness to that Federal tax policy, but that provision expired last year, and more than 64,000 Tennessee families will suffer if that tax relief is not extended. That is just one provision. There are many others. The research and development tax credit, we know, is absolutely critical to our small businesses, mid-size businesses, and larger businesses in order to grow and to do that research and innovation that prepares them for the future and that creates jobs for the future. The final piece of the Family Prosperity Act increases the minimum wage. Specifically, it increases it by 40 percent; thus, if we were to pass this bill tonight, the Family Prosperity Act, in the very near term, because it already passed the House, minimum wage workers-- several million people--will have a 40 percent increase that will begin in the very near future. Young workers entering the job market for the first time would have a minimum wage hike that would be welcome. I see that my colleague, Senator Grassley, is here. At this point, I will be happy to yield to him. He has a statement of 15 to 20 minutes. I yield to him what time is required for his statement.

Mr. FRIST. Yes.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, has time been used on our side?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute using leader time to my distinguished colleague from Kentucky.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in closing, I will be very brief. In a few moments, we will be voting on the motion to proceed to this very important bill called the Family Prosperity Act. It is called that very specifically for the reasons we have outlined. There are three very important components: The extension of tax relief--we spoke about it on the floor, key provisions such as the State and local tax deduction affecting the many States, in my State alone, 670,000 Tennessee families; college tuition deduction affecting millions of families; research and development tax credit which stimulates growth, innovation, creativity, and jobs; teachers' classroom expenses deduction, affecting 55,000 teachers. Secondly, the permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is not only a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55 percent and dropping to $1 million in 2011, it is a $5 million exemption per spouse indexed for inflation, and a 15-percent tax rate from $5 million to $25 million. Thirdly, a minimum wage increase, 40 percent over the next 3 years-- 40 percent. In summary, an ``aye'' vote is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. An ``aye'' vote is for that extension of tax relief. And an ``aye'' vote is for that 40 percent minimum wage increase. We have a lot of challenges before us. We have addressed many others in the last 4 weeks. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American out their working, their family, that farmer, that small business owner. I encourage my colleagues to vote aye. I ask unanimous notwithstanding rule XXII that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the real vote would have been 57 to 41. I switched my vote from ``aye'' to ``no,'' thus the reported vote is 56 to 42. I want to clarify, very briefly, where we are now. For purely procedural reasons, as leader, I switched my vote to a ``no'' vote to preserve all of my procedural options. As everyone knows, I strongly support cloture and moving to proceed to the three important issues in the Family Prosperity Act. I initially voted ``yes'' on cloture, but by switching to a ``no'' vote, I preserve my right, as leader, to revisit this issue in the future as a package. The Senate just had a majority vote to move forward to this bill which reforms the onerous death tax, raises the minimum wage for millions of Americans, and provides a number of important tax relief extenders that will expire. Had the Senate invoked cloture, I am confident we could have finished this measure this weekend and presented it to the President in the next couple of days to become the law of the land. With my switched vote, I preserve the procedural option to bring the bill back as a package. I hope the Democratic Senators will rethink long and hard over the weeks to come before we return for business in September. Mr. President, finally, just for the record, a number of comments were made just prior to the vote about the tip wage issue. As my colleagues know, I have made it clear to them that is an issue that we would be able to address once on the bill. But we have now been prevented from getting on the bill. I am confounded. There is no other way to put it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle come to this floor, time and again, raving about a ``do nothing'' Congress. Well, today, just a few minutes ago, we had yet another opportunity to do something--as we have already many times this Congress. We had the chance to bring three very important issues to the floor for debate: permanent death tax relief, extension of expiring tax provisions, and a minimum wage Increase. These are issues that matter in the day-to-day lives of our constituents--issues that actually mean something to hard-working Americans. And yet some of my colleagues decided these issues aren't important enough to debate here on the Senate floor. This package--it's about securing America's prosperity. It's about easing the tax burden facing America's families. It's about helping hard-working Americans tackle an increasing cost of living head on. And it's about fostering innovation and reinvestment in our homegrown small businesses and farms. Quite simply, it's vital to the economic security of everyday Americans. These are challenging issues, and they must be addressed here on the Senate floor. And as I have said before, these issues must be addressed as a package: permanent death tax relief, tax policy extensions, and a 40- percent increase in the minimum wage. All three together. All or nothing. Not bringing this package--the Family Prosperity Act--to the floor is tantamount to saying, ``We don't care about America's economic security.'' And I am deeply ashamed that we, the U.S. Senate, would ever dare send such a message to the American people.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, before we move to pass this bill, I, too, want to add my commendation, my thanks, my appreciation, my gratitude to Senator Santorum and Senator Dodd. I have had the opportunity to work almost daily with Senator Santorum on this particular issue and because of his focus and his dedication and hard work, indeed, at 11:15 tonight, we do have a reason to celebrate--celebrate not just for the bill itself but because it is a major step forward for the hundreds and thousands of families across this Nation who are exposed to, are touched by, who celebrate autism, and that this bill itself recognizes we have a long way to go. It was a year ago that I asked the Government Accountability Office to look at and evaluate our country's efforts to combat autism and to look at the challenges that we have before us. It was 6 years ago that Senator Kennedy and I cosponsored a bill, the Children's Health Act of 2000. The report was released today, the General Accounting Office report. It states that while Federal funding coordination and research have increased since the Children's Health Act of 2000, there is a significant need for more coordination, for expanded research, for better strategies for education, and indeed for more health care professionals to serve the autism community. If you wrap all of that up, there is a need for better research, diagnosis, and treatment. And there is a need for a cure. On the Senate floor we will talk about that need, but it is parents like Brian and Tracy Noll who feel it every day. Brian and Tracy are parents, actually Pennsylvanian parents--referring to my distinguished colleague, the sponsor of this bill--of a 7-year-old son with autism. As an infant, their son Tyler exhibited--this is the usual course--all the normal signs of a healthy baby, a happy baby. But at 18 months Brian started to notice that Tyler would no longer look him in the eye. Again, as is the custom, after repeated visits to doctors, repeated visits, there was a lot of mystery initially. He was ultimately diagnosed with autism at the age of 3. Today Tyler struggles with communication and coordination, his language and sensory skills are limited. He knows, yes, that he is different from other children, but he really can't understand why. Brian and Tracy see their fun-loving son whose smile lights up the room and they hope for new treatments that will help him lead a normal and productive life. They hope researchers will help cure autism, and, yes, they hope someday we will understand why. Because of the tremendous work of Senators Santorum and Dodd, under the chairmanship of Chairman Enzi and Chairman Kennedy--who I mentioned back from our work together in 2006-- we are on the way to that becoming a reality. It is one of the least understood developmental disorders of our time. The difficulties with communication skills and social skills are well known. But no case is the same. Every case is a little bit different. It covers, as its name suggests, a spectrum of behaviors. Approximately 40 percent of children with autism do not talk. Others will learn to talk but later stop speaking altogether. Some read at an advanced pace. Some have unique athletic abilities. Some will exhibit excellent fine motor skills but will have a great deal of difficulty with the more simple tasks before them. I think back to 30 years ago when I graduated from medical school: Autism was little talked about as a disorder. But over the next three decades we have watched its incidence steadily grow. That is why, as I mentioned, in the year 2000, Senator Kennedy and I were compelled to introduce that Children's Health Care Act. The intent was for America to better understand and treat and one day prevent a disorder that had for so long eluded the scientific community as well as the medical and clinical community. As the GAO report released today highlights, coordination of Federal autism activities in NIH research has increased. Indeed, NIH funding has doubled between 2000 and today. Yet, for as many strides as we made in the last 5 years, one fact remains: There is no cure. We shed more light on autism, but we are still at the very dawn of understanding the disorder and its origins. As a physician I have witnessed firsthand the power of research--if we invest, if we set up a framework for the appropriate research. And with reason, I harbor hope for a day when autism has a cure. But that day depends on this body making a commitment. We have laid a foundation. But today we have an opportunity to build on it by passing the Combating Autism Act, which not only reauthorizes The Children's Health Act of 2000--it addresses the specific challenges laid out in the GAO report. The GAO report highlights that we need greater coordination of Federal autism activities, and this bill ensures it. The report states that surveillance of autism can be improved through better coordination--and this bill ensures it. The report identifies the need for more health care professionals who are trained to interact with autism patients--and this bill ensures it. The report makes clear that because there is no cure and no known cause, research must be continued, and it must be expanded. And this bill ensures it. For the parents of children with autism, there is so little certainty. There is no guarantee when they wake up in the morning that it will be a good day for their child. There is no guarantee that their child will learn to talk or to read or interact with his peers. And there is no certainty what the future holds for that child who will one day be an adult. Today is an opportunity to provide those parents with what little certainty we can. Today is the opportunity to assure them that we are continuing to push forward for better treatment, for more research, for a greater understanding, and one day, perhaps a cure. I thank my colleagues Senators Santorum and Dodd for sponsoring this legislation. And I am pleased we have passed this important bill. What we are about to do is a great victory for this body, for the country, and indeed for the parents of children with autism. I am pleased in a few moments we will pass this very important deal. Both of my colleagues have previously mentioned their relationship with others who have autism. Again, Bob and Susan Wright have been tremendous leaders in their communities, across the country, and indeed globally in fighting autism. A good friend, Phil Geier, who they know very well, a close friend of mine, has been instrumental in shedding that communication, that light on this entity. We can all celebrate today that, because of all their hard work and the leadership of Chairman Enzi, we will be passing that bill shortly.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. This pension bill--while not technically a conference report--essentially represents the bipartisan and bicameral agreement reached by House and Senate pension conferees after many months of negotiation. I am aware of the Senators' concern about the interest rate issue; I have had other Senators approach me as well. Although we are not in a position to amend the bill before us, I can promise the Senators that I will continue to work with them on this issue after we return from the August recess. Until the Senate has had an opportunity to more fully examine the issues involved in this complex matter, we should consider it an issue that requires further discussion. As such, I think this issue needs to be reviewed further this year to assure an equitable result, recognizing of course that the House would have to agree to any changes we might propose.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if I could have one minute.