I know we said yesterday morning's Fizz report would be the last word on the great sales tax deduction debate between U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and the Republicans.

But I want to add just a bit more. Or quite a bit: The C-SPAN transcript of the debate.

But first, a footnote: The transcript makes a mockery of the misleading Rossi press release that went out Wednesday night which said Murray offered up her proposal "AFTER the Senate had already adjourned."

Yes, the Senate had voted to adjourn. But that doesn't mean, as the Rossi campaign sarcastically and incorrectly implies, that Murray was addressing the tumbleweeds in a non sequitur moment that was purely for political show. To the contrary, the Senate was still very much in session and doing business. The "adjournment" vote that preceded Murray's sales tax deduction proposal (which allows residents of certain states to deduct sales tax from their federal income taxes, and is worth about $600 annually to Washington State residents) was a necessary parliamentary vote that set the clock running on final business.

Rossi campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Morris' explanation: "Most people were already gone when she offered her [bill]."

The fact is: The Senate was all action yesterday after the "adjourn" vote, passing more than 30 measures, including the Coast Guard Authorization Act, the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act, a social services block grant for disaster relief funding, and the Oil Spill Prevention Act.

Anyway, here's the transcript of Murray vs. Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who blocked the extension. Some context: A different bill, Sen. Max Baucus' (D-Montana) bill to extend the sales tax deduction, give tax breaks to green technology, and cut corporate loopholes to pay for it all was already off the table—having been blocked by Thune and Republicans last week.

The version that Murray offered up last night was similar to an unfunded GOP proposal from Monday. The difference between the GOP proposal and Murray's? Murray's bill extended the sales tax deduction for a year (it was the only way to get Baucus to go for it, Murray's office says) while Monday's GOP proposal, offered by Wyoming Republican John Barrasso, extended it permanently.

Murray's office tells us she would have voted for the GOP bill on Monday. However, Baucus would not.  (Presumably, Baucus didn't want a permanent extension because he wanted to re-propose his broader bill next year.)

Okay. That's the context. Here's the transcript:

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have been working very hard over the last several months to extend the critical sales tax deduction for families and small businesses in my home State of Washington and in a number of other States in this country. I know how important this is to middle-class families in my State, and I have heard from so many of them about how important it is that this deduction be extended.

But every time we brought forward a bill that would help these families, Republicans have banded together to block it. They would stand here on the floor and say they objected to the way we paid for this deduction or they did not like some of the other tax cut extensions we included in the bill. They gave different reasons each time, but they refused to come to the table with real solutions for this serious issue facing middle-class families.

I have been urging Senate Republicans to change their minds, and finally, on Monday night, Senate Republicans came forward with a proposal. Their bill came at the 11th hour, and it stripped away all of the other tax credits that would have helped families, clean energy companies, and small businesses.

Senator Baucus was here and he objected to it because he wanted to focus on a tax cut extension bill we had been working on for many months that already had the support of a majority of the Senate.

But extending the sales tax deduction is too important for families in my home State of Washington to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

So over the last several days, I have talked to a number of my colleagues about this. I made sure they understood that this issue is about more than the political back-and-forth in DC; it is about real people in my home State of Washington. It is about removing a bias in the Tax Code that is fundamentally unfair to our families. It is about putting more money into their pockets at a time when they can use all the help they can get.

So I am here to say that after many conversations with my colleagues on the Democratic side, they have agreed to set aside their objections and allow the sales tax deduction extension to pass this evening because, frankly, this issue shouldn't be controversial, and the livelihoods of middle-class families shouldn't be used as a political football in election year games.

So in just a minute I will ask unanimous consent to pass a bill that pulls the sales tax exemption out of the legislation we had it in before, which will allow it to stand alone tonight. It is what Republicans offered us on Monday night, with one small compromise. It is very close to the version the Republicans offered. I can't imagine they are going to object to it this evening, but rather than a permanent extension that I and many others would prefer, what I will offer is to extend the sales tax exemption alone for 1 year, which will offer greater stability and confidence for middle-class families in these tough times. I believe this is a reasonable compromise, and I believe it can and ought to pass tonight.

I was proud to work with my colleagues to put politics aside and advance this proposal that will help people and solve problems. It is very narrowly drafted for just the State sales tax deduction. I know it is important to my State and to many, and I hope the Republicans will allow this to go forward tonight.

So I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3617, that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 35, as amended, with the amendment at the desk, be inserted, and that the amendment be agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object if the Senator from Washington would substitute the language which is at the desk which extends all the things she has talked about this evening, as well as provides a 2-year extension for the physician fee issue which is expiring on November 30, but does it with spending reductions as opposed to tax increases. That amendment is at the desk, and if the Senator from Washington would substitute that language for her amendment, I will not object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object to the modification offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request by the Senator from Washington?

Mr. THUNE. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

The Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, while the Senator from South Dakota is here, I wish to make sure he understood what I offered tonight. It is what the Republicans offered to us on Monday night, which is the simple extension of just the sales tax deduction, which I know affects his State as well as mine, for 1 year. So I want him to understand that is all I have asked to do tonight, to just extend the sales tax deduction which I know is important to his State and to mine, and I would again ask the Senator from South Dakota if he would allow us to move forward with just that deduction this evening.

Mr. President, I would again ask the Senator from South Dakota if we could just extend not the rest of the package but just the sales tax deduction, as your side offered to us on Monday night.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator from Washington through the Chair that I would be happy to take a look at this and run it by my colleagues. Obviously, this is not something I think everybody--there isn't anybody here right now--has had an opportunity to look at. We have tried repeatedly to get some cooperation on an extenders package that includes a number of important tax provisions that have expired already, as well as some that are set to expire, and to do that through offsets that reduce spending as opposed to raising taxes, particularly at a time when the economy is in recession.

So as much as I would agree with the Senator from Washington that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed--and it is important to my State--I would have to object until we have an opportunity to look at the amendment that the Senator from Washington put forward.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I just have to say I am really confused by this because what we have offered is simply what the Republicans agreed to--offered Monday night, and I have come back to offer it again. It is perplexing to me on an issue that is so important to my State, and to several other States, that we can't now, a few days later, do this. So I am not sure we are not just having games about this. It is extremely important to people in my State, and I am deeply disconcerted that the Republicans have not agreed to allow us to just pass the State sales tax deduction for 1 year.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.