Main Page | Recent changes | View source | Page history

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

 Not logged in
Log in | Help
 

Senate Record - January 30, 2007

From dKosopedia

Category: 110th Congress

Congressional Record
Senate - January 30, 2007 - week 5
110th - United States Congress
Image:US-SenateRecord.jpg
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Previous Monday - January 29, 2007
Next legislative session


These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on January 30, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.

Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.


Contents

On the Floor

Morning Session - Senate - Tuesday, January 30, 2007

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Sherrod Brown, a Senator from the State of Ohio.

Schedule (Harry Reid-Majority Leader)

Mr. Harry Reid, Majority Leader - This morning, the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes, the first half controlled by the majority and the remaining half controlled by the Republicans. Following morning business, we will resume H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill, and debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment to H.R. 2 will extend until 12:15 p.m. today, and that time is equally divided. However, at 11:55 a.m., the Republican leader will be recognized for 10 minutes for whatever time he or his designee wishes to speak, and then the final 10 minutes prior to 12:15 p.m. will be controlled by the majority. The first 5 minutes of that time will be for Senator Kennedy and the second 5 minutes will be for me.

Regardless of the outcome of the cloture vote, the Senate will recess for the party conferences and then reconvene at 2:15 p.m. For the information of the Senate, each Senator will have until 11 a.m. to file any additional second-degree amendments.

I will have more to say later today regarding the schedule, according to how the votes turn out.

Morning Business

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

The Acting President pro tempore - Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Richard Durbin-IL)

Minimum Wage

Mr. Durbin, Illinois - Mr. President, at long last, I believe we are on the verge of passing legislation that is long overdue. Soon we are going to vote on a procedural motion, known as a cloture motion, for the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which takes us one step closer to raising the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over the next 2 years.

It has been 10 years since Congress has raised the minimum wage for the lowest paid workers in America. Since we last raised the minimum wage, its value has eroded because of inflation, the rising cost of living. Unlike our congressional pay raises, it has not kept pace with the actual cost of living in America.

The Democrats have been trying for almost 10 years to convince the majority party, then Republicans, that there are millions of Americans who go to work every single day and still can't make enough money to provide decent daycare for their kids, pay their medical and utility bills, and provide food and other essentials that are part of every family's life.

Many of those people working for a minimum wage in Illinois make about $6.50 an hour because we raised it on a State basis in my home State. Yet they understand the need to raise the minimum wage. One woman wrote to me and said:

I can't support my daughter on the wages I have, and I have to rely on my family. I won't get a significant increase in my wages until you bump up the wages. I make about $14,000 a year. I'm sure that's nothing to you but I have to live off that.

This woman, by the way, is a college graduate trying to raise her child, trying to do the right thing.

What help has she received from this Congress over the last 10 years? Almost none. Keep in mind, she lives in a State where our minimum wage is higher than $5.15. I can't imagine, in the 21 States that are stuck at $5.15 an hour, how these folks get along.

I heard a lot of my colleagues stand up on the floor and make good speeches about family values. Let's all agree on one thing: The most important family value is helping a parent raise a child and provide the necessities of life, and $5.15 an hour will not do that.

So 6 million Americans are watching this debate. Those are the people living on the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to keep them in mind when we get a chance to vote this afternoon.

The Economy

Mr. Durbin, Illinois - Mr. President, I am honored that the President of the United States is in my home State of Illinois today. He is visiting Peoria, a great city. It has a great major company, Caterpillar, which has had terrific success. Caterpillar has shown increases in revenues and profits. It is a great corporate citizen and neighbor in the Peoria area. We are proud it is doing well.

But I would like to talk for a minute about areas in Illinois that the President will not be visiting. He will not be visiting Herod, IL, which lost 1,000 jobs recently when its Maytag manufacturing plant closed; or DuQuoin, IL, where 356 manufacturing jobs were lost at Archway; and then Mount Vernon, where Joy Manufacturing lost 175 manufacturing jobs; and Pinckneyville, where Technicolor Media Services will be closing its plant on March 31, causing 444 people to lose their jobs. I could go on.

Today President Bush comes to Peoria to talk about the state of the America's economy. The reality of America's economy is that on his watch, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs. Some have been replaced with jobs in convenience stores, but we all know the harsh reality. A person working for a minimum wage in a convenience store is not going to be able to take care of their family similar to someone working in a manufacturing job.

We have to understand that America can do better. How can we do better? First, acknowledge that trade is part of our future; globalization is as real as gravity. But make sure the trade agreements we enter into are trade agreements that are sensible--sensible in terms of labor standards, environmental standards, and enforceable.

The one thing that troubles me the most is this Bush administration has refused to enforce the trade agreements on the books. We all know what is going on in China--currency manipulation, dumping, unfair subsidies. Under the Bush administration, in 6 years, they have only filed two complaints against China for unfair trade practices.

As we lose good-paying jobs in America to China and other countries, we need to stand up and enforce the trade agreements that this administration and others have entered. The Bush administration needs to stand up for working families and fight off unfair trade practices that steal good jobs from America.

We also have to understand another harsh reality. Most Americans today, when asked, don't believe their children will have as good a life as they have had. That is such a sad commentary in America. It reflects the fact that 47 million Americans have no health insurance. It reflects the fact that fewer and fewer Americans have a retirement plan on which they can count, and it shows us that the wages that are being paid to working families, middle-income families in America, are not keeping up with the cost of housing, the cost of utility bills, the cost of gasoline for their cars, and the cost of putting their children through college.

If you want to know the real state of the economy, don't sit down and talk to the economists. Talk to the real working families in Illinois and across America who are struggling each day to make ends meet, going deeper in debt on their credit card bills and wondering if their kids will have as good a chance in the America to come.

That is the reality of our economy. Oh, the stock market may be strong. The heads of major corporations may be making tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. The Tax Code may be crafted by this administration to favor those who are doing so well. But the reality on Main Street in America is that people are struggling. We are losing manufacturing jobs. We are not enforcing our trade agreements, and we are not giving the kind of hope which they need to working families across America.

This Congress is going to start to turn that around. It will take some time. First, we are going to raise the Federal minimum wage. Then we are going to address the needs of the families who have kids in college, reduce the cost of those college student loans so kids don't end up with a mountain of debt when they finally graduate; find a way to make health care more affordable and bring down the cost of the prescription part of Medicare, Part D, so the seniors are not stuck with the highest drug bills in America.

That I hope is the real state of the economy. I hope the President will today acknowledge that reality.

Iraq

Mr. Durbin, Illinois - One last point I would like to make--the major issue on the minds of most Americans is the situation in Iraq. The President now wants to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq. Many of us feel this is a serious mistake; this is a strategy which has not been thought out.

This morning's Washington Post tells a story which is ominous. It is entitled "Equipment for Added Troops is Lacking." It goes on to say:

New Iraq forces must make do, officials say.

And here is the grim reality. The 21,000 soldiers this President wants to send into Iraq to join the 144,000 there will go without the equipment and protection they need and deserve. This report, which comes from the Pentagon, tells us that whether we are talking about vehicles, armor kits or basic equipment, our troops will not have what they need. In fact, the statement in here is from LTG Stephen Speakes and suggests:

We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks. ..... He said it will take the Army months, probably until summer, to supply and outfit the additional trucks. As a result, he said, combat units flowing into Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to units now there, leading to increased use and maintenance.

I have to ask, before we put any more soldiers in harm's way, don't we owe them the very best equipment they need so they can fight and come home safely?

Don't we owe that to them and their families?

Some argue that when we come to the floor and take exception to the policies of this administration, it undermines the morale of the troops. I couldn't disagree more. What undermines the morale of the Nation's soldiers is the notion that they have to go into combat with less than the best equipment, that they have to go into combat without the armor plate they need to come home safe and sound. That undermines morale a lot more than any debate on the floor of the Senate, and it is time for the White House and the Bush administration to answer honestly how can we escalate this war in Iraq if we don't at least improve the equipment for the troops who are going into battle? That is the reality of what our soldiers face today and have faced throughout this war in Iraq, and that is why we definitely need a new direction.

I yield the floor.

(Edward Kennedy-MA)

Increasing the Minimum Wage

Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts - Mr. President, I wish to, again, thank my friend from Illinois and also our leader for their strong support on the increase in the minimum wage. We will have more as we go on through the morning. We expect to vote at noontime today on the increase on the minimum wage. This is day seven. We had five courageous Republicans who voted with us to pass what we call a clean minimum wage law that would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 without additional kinds of tax provisions in there. The nine times we have increased the minimum wage we have only added tax provisions on one time. It is not necessary to add additional tax provisions, since we are restoring the purchasing power of the minimum wage to what it was some 10 years ago.

But I raise another broader issue for a few moments and that is, What is it about these working families that so outrages our Republican friends? What is it about providing a decent wage--some would say it is not decent because it is still so low at $7.25 an hour--but what is it about our Republican friends that they refuse to give us a vote in the Senate? It is true that 80 Republicans voted for an increase over in the House of Representatives. But Republican leadership has been strongly opposed to this over the last 10 years that I tried to bring up an increase in the minimum wage. It goes back a long period of time. We are seeing it once again, here, as the President is against an increase in the minimum wage.

I remind those who are watching the Senate deliberations this morning that we do not have any amendments over here on our side. The Democrats do not have any. They have more than 90 amendments over on the other side. I reminded the Senate, they have had amendments for over $200 billion. Some are dealing with Social Security. There are $35 billion in tax cuts on education, but they didn't include any help or assistance for children on the IDEA, those with disabilities or, for the neediest children, the Pell grants. We haven't had any consideration on that. They dropped that amendment in on the minimum wage program, completely unrelated to the minimum wage program. They had health savings accounts to benefit people with incomes of $133,000. We have had all those kinds of amendments, and they continue, if you read through that list. I have gone through those amendments and they continue.

My question comes back to this. What is it that the Republican leadership has against working families? I have raised that over the period of the last few days and I raise it today. I was looking back at the record of our Republican friends over the last year or so. They eliminated 6 million workers from overtime. Do we understand that? In the last 2 years, 6 million workers have had their overtime effectively canceled.

Since the 1930s, under President Roosevelt, there was a recognition that if people work more than 40 hours a week, they were going to be able to get overtime. The number of those individuals who work more than 40 hours a week is significant. It is over 28 percent in our country today. But this administration eliminated that extra time and a half for 6 million workers.

We say: What is it about those 6 million workers? Then we think about the opposition to the increase in the minimum wage. We take away their overtime when we are seeing this extraordinary increase in executive salaries, salaries which are exploding through the ceiling. Take away that overtime for 6 million workers. All right.

Then we see the great tragedy we had with Katrina, and we saw the attempts to rebuild after Katrina. What was the first thing the administration said? Eliminate any coverage or protection for workers in terms of their wages down there, what they call the Davis-Bacon program. It means they are not going to get paid what they get paid in the various regions, eliminate that so you can drive wages down even further in New Orleans. What is the reason for that? It is a good way to drive wages down for workers.

What is it about people in the construction industry? They average, I think it is $29,000 a year. That is too much for our Republican friends? Or $10,712 for a working American, a man or woman at the minimum wage, and they refuse to give some increase in that to $7.25 an hour? Here you have the average construction worker at $29,000 a year, and you are saying that is too high. What is it about this Republican Party, against the working families?

What was in their minds when they eliminated safety positions and reduced the budget for mine safety, prior to the Sago and Alma mine disasters? What was in their minds at that time, to reduce the kind of safety provisions? Is the power of the mine companies so great they can increase the risks for workers? Oh, yes, there are workers down there. They are the ones we want to cut back on, in terms of their overtime. They are the ones we are going to cut back on, in terms of safety.

I remember when this President Bush--after the first hearings we had, I think, in our committee--acted to eliminate the protections that had been recommended by President Clinton in the area of ergonomics, particularly affecting women who spend a great deal of time on computers. It affects others--those in the meat-packing industry and poultry industry, workers who perform repetitive kinds of procedures. We had extensive hearings. The Clinton recommendations were very modest. He encouraged companies to get into this and work with industry. Some people thought they were too weak, but they were protecting workers, hard-working people doing some of the most difficult work in America, protecting them so they are not going to get the kinds of complicated health challenges that will disable so many of those.

We know what the science is. We have had study after study by the National Academy of Sciences that said do something in Congress. We did something. But oh, no, the Republican leadership said: No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to provide protection for those workers. We are going to cut back on safety for those who work in the mines. We are going to cut back on overtime for 6 million. We are going to refuse to cover the workers down there in New Orleans who are working, trying to rebuild, when this administration basically ignored the problems there. Workers who were out there working, we are going to cut back and skimp on their salaries on this.

What is it about working people that this administration--the list goes on. Look at the amendments that are lined up to weaken OSHA. We see the number of lives that have been saved--tens of thousands of lives were saved. We have cut the death rate by more than 77 percent since OSHA has been in effect. There are new problems, new challenges, in terms of toxic substances, we have to look at. What is the voice over there? We hear great speeches about what is happening to the middle class. Let's take a step that can make some difference--certainly to 6 million children who will benefit if we increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25--6 million children's parents will benefit. We will have that opportunity.

I don't know what has changed in productivity. We worked closely together, for years and years, for a decent wage. It shows back in the 1960s, 1965 into the 1970s, we saw where our great American economy was moving along, increasing productivity. That increase in productivity was shared between the corporate world, the business world, and the workers. That is what was happening. We will get the charts later on.

Evidently our friends on the other side want to prolong this debate. We will get the charts to show that all America moved along in the 1940s and the 1950s, all the way through the 1960s--each quintile moved along virtually together. If you saw growth in the economy, it benefited all the groups together.

What has come over this country, and particularly the Republican Party, to say that no longer works in the United States? We don't want an economy that is going to work for everyone. We want an economy that is going to work for some--a few. What is it about it? I termed it ``greed. It is greed.

We have seen now what has happened in the change, in the increase in productivity. Still, the minimum wage goes down.

Mr. President, my excellent staff found that chart I was referring to--``Growing Together, 1947 to 1973. The lowest quintile, the second, third, right up to the very top--if you look at the different colors, you will see that all America moved along together. Now look what has happened. Corporations get a $276 billion tax break, small business a $36 billion tax break, and no increase in the minimum wage.

I hope somewhere during the course of this debate, our Republican friends will come out and make at least some argument about either the economics--it is an impossible one to make. You can't say it is the loss of jobs. We have dealt with that issue.

They will say you can't increase the minimum wage because it is inflationary in our economy. We show it is less than one-fifth of 1 percent of total wages paid over the course of the year. That argument doesn't work.

They will try to say it is not what our country is about, we can't afford that in the richest country in the world, where people are working. We demonstrate that the States which have an increase in minimum wage have grown faster and grown stronger and have a better economic record. And most important, child poverty has gone down.

I imagine, over the period of this year, we will hear 100 speeches in the different parts of our country about our children being our future. We have an opportunity today at noontime to do something about that. You don't have to make a speech, you have to vote right. You can vote today and, with that vote, hopefully, expedited process, that we can wind this legislation up and work out the differences with the House of Representatives and get it to the President to sign. Six million children will benefit.

So if you are talking about your concerns about middle class, if you are talking about working families, if you are talking about fairness and decency, if you are talking about children's issues, women's issues, civil rights issues, today at noon you have a chance to do something about it.

So I hope we will have more of an opportunity as we get closer to the time to add some additional comments. But I would hope that finally this basic, fundamental, and I think irrational, irresponsible, unacceptable, postured position our Republican friends have in terms of opposition--continued opposition, opposition, opposition--to the minimum wage would end. Today we are on the seventh day, but we debated this 16 other days to try to get an increase in the minimum wage without the Republicans letting us have it. How many days? What is the price? We don't even know what the price is. What are we supposed to do--keep bidding it out and sweetening the pot until the Republicans come along? Is that what the Americans want us to do? That is not what we are prepared to do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

(Christopher Bond-MO)

Minimuim Wage

Mr. Bond. Missouri - I thank the Chair. I would just say that like many Members on my side of the aisle, we pushed for a minimum wage bill last fall. Regrettably, it was filibustered, so we couldn't bring it to a vote. We are looking for and I intend to support a minimum wage bill if it has some reasonable tax incentives for small businesses that would be seriously harmed in some instances by the cost of a very drastic rise in the minimum wage. But I am hoping we will be allowed and not be prevented from adding those tax breaks that I think everybody needs.

Iraq

Mr. Bond. Missouri - Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Iraq and Iraq-related issues. I had the opportunity this past weekend and the previous weekend to spend a good deal of time with the Missouri National Guard men and women in Missouri who do a great job in providing civil response to tremendous problems, whether it is floods or tornadoes or, in some instances, an ice storm that was devastating. Many of them have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and are going back, and they are proud of what they do. They know they are doing the job the military was assigned to do, and they are proud of it and we should support them.

Mr. President, it is noteworthy that I mention again my colleague and National Guard Caucus Cochair Senator PAT LEAHY and I will reintroduce the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act later today.

This comprehensive legislation recognizes the paramount contributions that our citizen soldiers and airmen have made not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all over the globe and particularly here at home.

The bill provides four central planks: the elevation of the Guard chief to the rank of general, a seat for the chief of the Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff; mandates that the Deputy NorthCom position be for an eligible National Guard officer; and it allows for the National Guard Bureau to identify and validate equipment requirements, particularly those unique to the Guard's homeland missions.

When we went after the terrorists in Afghanistan, the Guard was there. When we needed to establish order and stability in Iraq, the Guard was there. When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast, the Guard was there. When a natural or man-made disaster strikes, the Governors call on the Guard, and the Guard is there. The next time America needs military forces overseas, the Guard will be there.

Unfortunately, when the Pentagon makes key decisions that impact the Guard, the Guard is still not there.

The need to empower the National Guard is not only still there but grows each day. We need to give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle, so that the force will not be continually pushed around in policy and budget debates within the Pentagon.

Time and time again, the National Guard has had to rely on the Congress, not its total force partners in the active duty, to provide and equip fully the resources it needs to fulfill its missions.

Our legislation will end this nonsense. We will put the National Guard on an equal footing with other decision makers responsible for national security and the transformation of the military forces.

As GEN Steve Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau put it, they need to be ``in the huddle at the Pentagon if they are to be in the game. This will ensure that the next time the 430,000 National Guard citizen-soldiers and airmen of the Guard are discussed at the senior levels of the Pentagon, the Guard will be there.

Additionally, I remind my colleagues that the Fiscal Year 2007 Military Construction and Quality of Life Appropriations bill was not passed into law. As a result, approximately $17 billion in new construction and BRAC projects authorized by the Congress in 2007 cannot proceed.

The military service chiefs have urged the Congress to pass this legislation

The projects funded by the Fiscal Year 2007 MILCON bill are necessary to sustain readiness and quality of life for U.S. service personnel. I also ask that letter from the Navy and Army Secretaries and Service Chiefs that raise concern about the risk by operating under a continuing resolution be printed in the RECORD.

I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this legislation be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps,

Washington, DC, December 22, 2006. Hon. TRENT LOTT, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR LOTT: We are seeking your assistance in lessening the severe burden placed on the Department of the Navy in the absence of a Military Construction, Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs FY 2007 Appropriations bill, and to offer our continued support for expeditious passage of this important legislation.

Although the Continuing Resolution (CR) has provided some initial relief, a CR in its current form of all of FY 2007 could severely impact Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 05 accounts because funding has thus far been limited to the smaller programs requested and enacted in FY 2006 as compared to the larger programs requested in FY 2007. It poses particularly acute problems in the Family Housing Construction, Navy; Military Construction, Navy; and Military Construction Naval Reserve accounts because of the restriction on the award of "new starts."

BAH provides Sailors and Marines monthly cash payments for their housing costs. Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funds provide an immediate and visible improvement to quality of life in the workplace. Both of these accounts were moved from the Defense Bill to the Military Construction, Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs for FY-07. It is important that the appropriations be made in the traditional accounts with normal flexibilities. If we are to manage under provisional levels for the full year, the Department must be able to address execution issues that inevitably will arise in these programs.

The CR is precluding our ability to provide modern, government owned or privatized quality housing to our Sailors, Marines and their families at a time when the Global War on Terror is placing enormous stress on our military and military families. The Department would be unable to complete a long standing Department of Defense goal to obligate funds needed to eliminate all inadequate housing by 2007. Specifically, we would have to postpone construction of 250 new homes at Naval Base Guam, and Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow CA. We would also have to postpone housing privatization projects on over 8,000 homes at Navy and Marine Corps installations in California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas.

If we are providing funding for "new starts, we can also improve operational readiness with modernized facilities, reduce national security threats at our nuclear weapons facilities, and provide new training capabilities for our men and women in uniform. Without funding, the Department would be unable to award 44 ``new start military construction projects in 11 states and four overseas locations totaling $857 million. One example is the award of two $13 million military construction projects for Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) ground control and tracking stations--one in Hawaii and another in Sigonella, Italy. MUOS is a $6.5 billion narrowband UHF satellite communications capability vital to our joint war fighters. There are operational concerns as existing satellite communication systems are failing as they reach the end of their service life. Without these ground stations, planned launches of the MUOS satellites already funded will be delayed, and the Department faces additional costs for spacecraft and ground equipment storage, contractual and additional fees, and other related costs far greater than the cost of the construction.

With respect to BRAC 05, the CR can stymie our efforts to construct facilities and move equipment and people to receiver locations, and impede our ability to harvest savings and organizational efficiencies already accounted for in the budget. Delaying installation closures jeopardizes our ability to proceed with the many joint recommendations that require complex, sequential moves, all of which by statute must be accomplished by September 2011. The Department of the Navy's share of the Department of Defense BRAC account in FY 2007 is $690 million, compared to the FY 2006 enacted amount of $247 million. While the Office of Management and Budget has ruled that "new starts, including BRAC construction, is not a concern in the BRAC 05 account, the current CR is limiting FY 2007 expenditures to the FY 2006 level. We will have to delay an estimated $382 million of BRAC construction and $61 million in civilian personnel moves, reductions, and hiring actions, primarily for BRAC actions in New Orleans, LA and southern California, until funding becomes available.

Prompt passage of an FY 2007 Military Construction, Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill would resolve these difficulties. The appropriations bills endorsed by the full House and Senate differed little from the President's budget request for the Department of the Navy. Should an FY 2007 bill prove unattainable, we would ask that you expand the authority in the CR to allow funding to the lower of the FY 2007 House and Senate appropriation bills, and allow for ``new starts in military construction and family housing accounts, subject as always to requirements of the Authorization Act.

We appreciate your continued support for our country's Sailors, Marines and their families. We stand ready to respond to any questions or concerns that you may have.

Sincerely,

James T. Conway,
General, U.S. Marine Corps.

Michael G. Mullen,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.

Donald C. Winter,
Secretary of the Navy.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Washington, DC, December 18, 2006. Hon. MITCH MCCONNELL, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR MCCONNELL: Over the past several years, the Army has executed an aggressive and carefully integrated plan in support of our national security mission. Our plan provides for simultaneous organizing, manning, training, equipping, deploying and redeploying of units and Soldiers, as well as the required materiel. It also lays the foundation for retaining our position as the world's dominant land force, to include base consolidation, restationing of troops, and improvements essential to providing our Soldiers and their families the standard of living they deserve.

Miltariy construction and quality of life initiatives constitute large, crucial portions of this carefully synchronized plan. Yet, the limitations imposed by the Continuing Resolution (CR) are already causing our plan to fray, and it is likely to unravel completely should we go through the entire fiscal year under a CR. The potential negative effects on operational readiness cannot be overemphasized; the Army's ability to prosecute the Global War On Terrorism and to prepare for future conflicts would be severely hampered.

As an example, the Army's FY 2007 Military Construction Plan includes almost $400 million to support the Army Modular Force through construction of a battle command training center, vehicle maintenance facility, several brigade complex facilities, barracks and numerous child development centers. Our force rotation plan to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our overall readiness posture, relies on completing these conversions to the Army Modular Force on time. We have recruited and retained the Soldiers, purchased individual force protection equipment, repaired and replaced weapons, and established a training plan, but now we are faced with the real possibility of not having facilities ready for training, maintenance, communications and command activities. We will have Soldiers at Fort Campbell, Fort Drum, and Fort Stewart who are ready to fight, ready to lead and ready to defend this country, but won't have adequate places to train, work or sleep.

We will see similar situations in the Reserve Component. The Army National Guard will be without aviation support facilities, field maintenance shops and supply points. The Army Reserve will lack several reserve centers, training facilities and storage facilities. We will put at risk funding or land provided by the states for many of these projects. Citizens eager to serve this country will find a lack of updated facilities.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiatives are quickly coming apart at the seams, as the Army will be limited to spending less than one-fourth of the amount needed to keep approved BRAC moves on schedule. Imbedded in BRAC is the movement of units from overseas back to the United States. Delaying BRAC means we won't meet our the 1st Armored Division from Germany to Fort Bliss and may hinder the establishment of two critically needed modular brigade combat teams. For every brigade combat team affected by these delays, thousands of Soldiers will lack facilities to train and work or, at best, will have only inadequate and outdated facilities.

In summary, the Army will experience unacceptable delays in constructing much needed facilities unless the Congress can pass a full Military Construction/Quality of Life Bill for FY 2007 by February or expand and enhance the next Continuing Resolution to permit the execution of all programs and projects requested in the FY 2007 President's Budget.

The Army's leadership is prepared to answer any questions you may have. We deeply appreciate your support of our men and women in uniform.

Sincerely,

Peter J. Schoomaker,
General, United States Army,
Chief of Staff.

Francis J. Harvey,
Secretary of the Army.

Mr. Bond. Missouri - Mr. President, one of the big questions that is being discussed today is what the President's plans are in Iraq and whether we should submit a resolution condemning the troop increases. I find it passing strange that many of the people pushing for a resolution to say we shouldn't send troops just adopted by a unanimous vote the confirmation of General Petraeus, who has said he believes he can do the job if he has the additional troops. He says the number is 21,000. Who are we to second-guess an experienced general who knows what the needs of his men and women in service are?

I have listened to many of the persuasive arguments on the other side about their concerns about the Iraq war. There are some who want to cut off completely our involvement--cut and run. They have an argument; they make a legitimate point. I hope we have a chance to vote on it because the intelligence community leaders from DNI to the military intelligence head to the CIA said cutting and running now would be a disaster resulting in chaos, in additional killing of Iraqi citizens, and giving the entire area over to al-Qaida and probably bringing in a region-wide conflict. So that is at least a position that I understand how they take it, but I will fight very hard against it.

What I don't understand is the people who say they want to do several things: They want to see a change in policy in Iraq. They want to see more Iraqi responsibility. They want to change the rules of engagement so we can go after Shia death squads and there won't be any political restrictions on it. And they want to adopt the strategy of the Baker-Hamilton report. Many of these same people who are now urging the adoption of a resolution said we need to send more troops. Well, when you look at it, the President is sending some more troops for a new strategy which involves the Iraqi leadership, Prime Minister al-Maliki, the Shia, as well as the Sunni and Kurdish leaders. They are now fighting without limitations on the rules of engagement. Our additional forces will be there at the request of al-Maliki to help him stabilize the country. This is the last best chance. This is the chance to leave a stable Iraq which will not become a terrorist ground for al-Qaida.

Sunday, I had the opportunity to talk to Jim Baker, the lead name on the Baker-Hamilton report. I said: Jim, is the President's surge what you recommend militarily? He said yes. That is precisely what the Baker-Hamilton commission recommended. He also recommended additional diplomatic efforts. But in terms of the military effort, he said: This is what we recommended.

Now, how do we send troops over and then think maybe we can get some political cover back home by saying we don't really agree with it? I don't think that does anything of real significance. There are some things a resolution passed by this Congress expressing disapproval of the President's plan would do, and I think they are significant and serious.

No. 1, it would send a message to those we fight against--al-Qaida, the Baathists, Sunni insurgents--that we are not serious; we don't intend to support our men who are supporting the Iraqi military. It gives them cause to fight harder and stay longer.

No. 2, it sends a message to our friends whom Secretary Rice is trying to bring in to help rebuild the economy of Iraq and provide jobs for unemployed young Iraqis--essential if we want to win 80 percent of the battle against radical Islam, which is ideological. It would tell them: you probably better not put too much money on the Iraqis because the U.S. Congress is going to pull the plug and then it will descend into chaos and any dollars we invest will be gone.

Third, I would ask my colleagues to think about the message it sends to the troops who are there, to the troops who will be going there. They are over there fighting. They are risking their lives every day. They are willing to take on the fight because they believe it is an important fight. They believe it is a fight we can and we must win militarily. What message does it send to the families back home? I think you can guess what that answer is.

I saw a very interesting article in the Washington Post on Sunday. Robert Kagan at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, has written a book. He said:

Grand Delusion: Politicians in Both Parties Act as if They Can Make the War Go Away Soon. It Won't.

He warns about all we are doing when we have laid out a plan and reinforcements for the Iraqi troops. He said:

Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican Members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: The solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off. Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly, even proudly, admit they are responding to current public mood. Those who think they were elected sometimes to lead rather than to follow seem to be in the minority.

And he goes on to say that those who call for an end to the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous if and when we walk away.

As I said, our intelligence community leaders, in open testimony a couple of weeks ago before the Senate Intelligence Committee, said if we walk away, leaving Iraq without an army and a security force adequate to sustain general order, peace and order in that country, not only will innocent Iraqis be slaughtered, there will be an open invitation for others to come in. How long can the Shias oppress the Sunnis without having the Jordanians and the Saudis and maybe the Egyptians come in to support them? We have already heard they would do that, to protect the Sunnis. And if the Sunni supporters came in, it would take about a New York minute for Iran to come in on behalf of the Shia. What kind of conflagration would ensue? It would take a lot more American troops to protect our ally Israel and to try to stop the killing.

In addition, we know that al-Qaida would have a safe haven. And al-Qaida is not mad because we are in Iraq; they just want to win in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, the No. 2 man, has been very eloquent, and he has been backed up by his boss, Osama bin Laden, who says: We have to win. Al-Qaida needs to restore chaos to Iraq so they will have a safe haven in which to operate, train their suicide bombers, their jihadists, develop means of command and control once again, perhaps get weapons of mass destruction. Well, that is what happens if we walk away and leave Iraq in chaos.

Back to Robert Kagan's piece:

Some people assume that if we can get the troops withdrawn, then it won't be a problem for all of our Senators running for President in 2008. Should any one of them win, they think by getting out of Iraq now, it won't be a problem.

Bob Kagan says that:

That is a delusion. Not only a democratic delusion, but some conservatives and Republicans have thrown up their hands. And they think that if we walk away, somehow the whole mess will simply solve itself and fade away.

He said:

Talk about a fantasy. The fact is the United States cannot escape the Iraq crisis or the Middle East crisis of which it is a part and will not be able to escape it for years. And if Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems, but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.

Well, Mr. President, I think that sets it up very well. I hope our colleagues will think about that. I hope they will consider that when they are talking about passing a resolution. It sends the wrong message to the enemies, to our allies, and to our troops and their families at home.

This war radical Islam has declared on us is a generational war, as the President said. We best be laying plans to do our best to protect our country from repeated attacks such as September 11 by al-Qaida. That is at stake. By being in Iraq, by having good intelligence at home, we have been fortunate to avoid another September 11 attack. If al-Qaida had planned and regrouped, we would be much more likely to have another.

I ask unanimous consent a copy of the article by Mr. Kagan be printed in the RECORD after my remarks on Iraq.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2007]

Grand Delusion: Politicians in Both Parties Act as if They Can Make the War Go Away Soon. It Won't.

(By Robert Kagan)

It's quite a juxtaposition. In Iraq, American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad--the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want They've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia. And they've embarked on these operations with the expectation that reinforcements will soon be on the way: the more than 20,000 troops President Bush has ordered to Iraq and the new commander he has appointed to fight the insurgency as it has not been fought since the war began.

Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off. Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly, even proudly, admit they are responding to the current public mood, as if that is what they were put in office to do. Those who think they were elected sometimes to lead rather than follow seem to be in a minority.

The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead, other than perhaps go back to the Baker-Hamilton commission's vague plan for a gradual withdrawal. Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to cap the number of troops in Iraq at 137,500. No one explains why this is the right number, why it shouldn't be 20,000 troops lower or higher. But that's not really the point, is it?

Other critics claim that these are political cop-outs, which they are. These supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.

Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.

Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.

To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away. Once American forces depart, Iraq will no longer be our problem. Joseph Biden, one of the smartest foreign policy hands in the Senate, recently accused President Bush of sending more troops so that he could pass the Iraq war on to his successor. Biden must assume that if the president took his advice and canceled the troop increase, then somehow Iraq would no longer be a serious crisis when President Biden entered the White House in 2009.

This is a delusion, but it is by no means only a Democratic delusion. Many conservatives and Republicans, including erstwhile supporters of the war, have thrown up their hands in anger at the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government. They, too, seem to believe that if American troops leave, because Iraqis don't "deserve" our help, then somehow the whole mess will solve itself or simply fade away. Talk about a fantasy. The fact is, the United States cannot escape the Iraq crisis, or the Middle East crisis of which it is a part, and will not be able to escape it for years. And if Iraq does collapse, it will not be the end of our problems but the beginning of a new and much bigger set of problems.

I would think that anyone wanting to be president in January 2009 would be hoping and praying that the troop increase works. The United States will be dealing with Iraq one way or another in 2009, no matter what anyone says or does today. The only question is whether it is an Iraq that is salvageable or an Iraq sinking further into chaos and destruction and dragging America along with it.

A big part of the answer will come soon in the battle for Baghdad. Politicians in both parties should realize that success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be responsible, and provide the moral and material support our forces need and expect. The next president will thank you.

Mr. Bond. Missouri - I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore -The Senator from Texas is recognized.

(John Cornyn-TX)

Iraq

Mr. Cornyn, Texas - I start by telling the Senator from Missouri how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue. As the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he knows as well as anyone what is at stake in Iraq and in the global war on terror. I know his son, Sam, is a member of the Marine Corps and has served in Iraq. I believe he is either back or headed back here very soon, so this is a matter in which the Senator from Missouri has a personal investment, in addition to the larger investment all Americans have in making sure our security is protected to the extent possible. That is what it boils down to.

Some say we have to do this for the Iraqis. I suggest, as laudable as that is, we need to do this for us. What do I mean by ``this? I mean what the Iraq Study Group--the bipartisan group created to look into the challenge of the conflict in Iraq--recommended. They pointed out quite clearly that it is in America's vital security interests to leave Iraq when we do. Of course, that is the goal we all share. We want to leave Iraq, but we must leave Iraq based on conditions where Iraq can sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself.

It is bewildering to see a vote like we saw last Friday in the Senate where GEN David Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, was confirmed unanimously by this Senate, yet there are those who say: Yes, we are going to confirm you, General, unanimously. We are going do say nice things about you and your talents and dedication and patriotism that you have demonstrated by your service, but the plan that you are the architect of, we are not going to support it. We are going to pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which, in his own words, undermines his ability to be successful in America's ability to protect its national security interests by leaving Iraq in a condition that it can sustain, govern, and defend itself, and which sends a wrong message to our enemies.

The consequences of failure in Iraq are best summed up by the Iraq Study Group on page 34. They said that a chaotic Iraq would provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region around the world.

It will surely be a failed state if we leave Iraq before conditions on the ground permit the Iraqis to govern, sustain, and defend themselves. It will likely lead to a failed state much as Afghanistan was after the Soviet Union was run out of Afghanistan in 1979.

What was that condition? We know all too well on September 11, 2001, when America was hit by al-Qaida on our own shores, that what happened in the interim between the time the Soviet Union left Afghanistan was a rise of the Taliban and al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden, who was plotting and planning and training and then exporting terror attacks against the United States and against our allies.

It is entirely probable, in my opinion, that if we leave Iraq prematurely, before it can sustain, govern, and defend itself, Iraq will become another failed state like Afghanistan, another place where terrorists can train, recruit, and then export terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies.

It is also likely that if we leave Iraq prematurely, it would lead to a broader regional conflict, probably involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and we may have to later return at a greater cost to our Nation.

This is another matter to which I don't think the people have paid enough attention: to leave Iraq prematurely would lead to massive human suffering. The other day, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing on Iraqi refugees. Of course, there are brave Iraqis who have worked alongside America and our allies to try to restore democracy to that country after Saddam's bloodthirsty reign. They are worried, as they should be, that if America pulls out, along with our coalition partners, before Iraq is able to sustain, govern, and defend itself, they will be slaughtered. It will be ethnic cleansing where Shia will kill Sunni. It will draw in, likely, the Sunni majority nations such as Saudi Arabia to defend the Sunnis against ethnic cleansing.

We are at a crossroads. The choices are not necessarily good ones, but they are the choices with which our Nation is confronted. We can either stay with the status quo which, frankly, I don't know anyone who believes the status quo is working or, No. 2, we can, as some have suggested, cut off funding for our troops and result in a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq or, No. 3, we can devise a new strategy in an effort to succeed where the current strategy has not in Iraq.

I believe the obvious choice is No. 3. If we are going to confirm a new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, as we have done; if we are going to confirm a new general leading coalition forces in Iraq, like David Petraeus, as we have done; if we are going to confirm a new commander of Central Command, Admiral Fallon, as I am confident we will do; we need to ask for their advice, get their advice, and, frankly, take their advice. I am afraid this has become far too political and not focused, as it should be, on a bipartisan basis, on what is in America's strategic and security self-interest.

The Washington Post summed it up in an editorial this way. They said legislators need a better way to act on their opposition to the current policy than passing a nonbinding resolution that may cover them politically but have no practical impact other than perhaps the negative one suggested by the general--and they are talking about General Petreaus. What are the negative impacts? General Petreaus made that clear in the nomination hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Senator McCain asked:

Suppose we send you additional troops and we tell the troops, while we support you, we are convinced you cannot accomplish your mission, and we do not support the mission that we are sending you on. What effect does that have on the morale of the troops?

General Petraeus:

Well, it would not be a beneficial effect, sir.

Senator Lieberman:

A Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that well, some clear expression that the American people are divided?

General Petraeus:

That's correct, sir.

I understand as well as anybody the reservations that Members of the Senate have about the new plan. The question we all have is, Will it work? Obviously, there are no guarantees. However, I know there is one sure plan for failure that will embolden our enemies, undermine our allies, and demoralize our troops, and that is to pass a resolution of no confidence in the only plan that has now been proposed for a new way forward in Iraq: working with the Iraqi Government, Prime Minister Maliki, making it clear there are benchmarks they need to meet; that it is their country, and they need to take the lead. We will support them. We will help stiffen their spine, particularly when it comes to preventing sectarian violence and taking on the militias which have ruled the streets in so much of Iraq. But this is the only chance and the only alternative that has been offered by anyone, so far, as to the way forward.

I make an appeal to our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. On November 7, we had an election. As a result of that election, Democrats no longer were a minority party but became the majority in the Congress, both in the House and in the Senate. While I understand that as a minority party frequently we do not have the opportunity to set the agenda or to provide the leadership and are left with criticizing what the majority party does, my hope would be that the new majority would rise to the occasion, would set partisanship aside as much as possible, particularly with regard to our national security interests, would not focus on the 2008 election or worry about individual political outcomes. My hope is the new majority would use this as an opportunity to work with the new minority to send a vote of confidence and to provide a plan, support for the plan that has been drafted by General Petraeus and supported by all our military leadership for the possibility of a successful way forward in Iraq.

Frankly, for our friends on the other side of the aisle to merely criticize and offer resolutions of no confidence that are not binding is not an act of encouragement. It is not an act of patriotism but, unfortunately, as General Petraeus said, it will undermine our troops' morale and embolden our enemies. We all owe it to the troops who have risked their lives, to the families who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom and to protect our security, to do our very best to work together to try to support a way forward in Iraq which has the best chance of success.

My hope is, in the coming days, through this debate, we will agree to do that, and we will avoid making political statements that have no binding effect and which serve only to embolden our enemies and undermine our friends.

I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona on the floor of the Senate, and I yield to him.

The Acting President pro tempore -The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

(Jon Kyl-AZ)

Iraq

Mr. Kyl, Arizona - Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from Texas, in urging the Senate to think very carefully about passing what appears to be a nonbinding resolution, but what, in fact, has dramatic consequences.

It is true that a nonbinding resolution would not change the policy of the President; he is the Commander in Chief. He has decided on a new strategy after consultation with a lot of people, and that new strategy is now being implemented in Iraq as we speak.

The Senate, last Friday, confirmed GEN David Petraeus to carry out that policy. By the way, it seems quite incongruous we would, on the one hand, confirm General Petraeus, pat him on the back, and say: Go do the mission in Iraq--by the way, we disagree with the mission. That is one of the bad messages that is sent.

I would like to talk a little bit more about the sending of messages with the nonbinding resolutions. That is obviously what the proponents of the resolutions would like to do. They have talked about sending a message. Mostly they are trying to send a message to the President. Of course, any Senator who wants to talk to the President has that capability. We do not need to send messages to the President publicly in areas that cause harm. We should think about the consequences of such a message to our enemies, to our allies, and most especially to the troops that we send in harm's way.

Think for a moment about the consequences of a message that says that we disagree with the President's strategy, we disagree with the mission, and we don't believe that any more troops should be involved or that the United States should remain in Iraq beyond a very limited period of time. The message that sends to our enemies is a devastating one.

As General Petraeus testified before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, war is about breaking the will of your opponent. He feared the consequences of such a resolution which he said would not be helpful because it would send a signal to our enemies that we don't have the support in the United States Government necessary to break the will of the opponent.

These terrorists well understand this is a contest of wills. Can they outlast us? Osama bin Laden thinks we are the ``weak horse, as he puts it, and he is the ``strong horse; that we left Vietnam, that we left Lebanon, that we left Somalia, and we will leave Iraq before the job is done as well. And he believes that. So there is a test of wills going on. And if the enemies come to believe they can outlast us, that their will is stronger than ours, then it is very difficult to defeat them in this war against terrorism.

The message it sends to our allies is we are not necessarily a reliable ally. Certainly, to people in the neighborhood--the people in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and elsewhere--you can imagine they would quickly begin to hedge their bets because of the neighborhood in which they live. If we are going to leave, and they have to continue to live with these bad actors, then, as before September 11, you will see them begin to hedge their bets and provide support for, in one way or another, terrorists who live in that neighborhood. That is against the national security interest of the United States.

The message that is sent to our troops is perhaps the most devastating because it says: We have sent you on a mission, and yet we do not believe in the mission. We are putting you in harm's way. You may, in fact, die trying to complete your mission, but it is not a mission that we believe in.

Think about the message that sends to the troops and to the families.

Very interestingly, last Friday, ``NBC Nightly News had an interview with three soldiers from Iraq talking about this very point. It was in the Brian Williams newscast. He called on Richard Engel, reporting from Baghdad, who had interviewed these three soldiers. I think what they had to say should instruct us. He talked about the new mission they were on, and he said:

It's not just the new mission the soldiers are adjusting to. They have something else on their minds:

This is David Engel, the reporter, speaking--

the growing debate at home about the war. Troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing.

Then, this is what SPC Tyler Johnson said:

Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may support--``Oh, we support the troops, but you're not supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what they believe for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me.

Engel then said:

Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun has served in Afghanistan and is now in his second tour in Iraq. He says people back home can't have it both ways.

Then SSG Manuel Sahagun said:

One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way.

Finally, Engel said:

Specialist Peter Manna thinks people have forgotten the toll the war has taken.

SPC Peter Manna said:

If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain.

Engel closed his report saying:

Apache Company has lost two soldiers and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.

That is the message we send to our troops: that they may be dying in vain, that they may be putting their life on the line in vain because we do not support the mission we put them in harm's way to accomplish. That is a devastating blow to morale.

Just imagine what you would do if you were the parent or the spouse of one of those soldiers who got killed and came to believe the mission we had sent them on was no longer a mission that we supported, and yet we continue to keep them in harm's way.

My view is, if you think this war is lost or that we cannot win it, that you have the courage of your convictions and vote to cut off the funds and bring the folks home right now before any more die. But if you believe, as the President does, that we must not leave Iraq a failed state, that there is still an opportunity there to succeed, and that his plan deserves a chance to succeed, then we should not support resolutions that send a different message.

That is why I want to urge my colleagues to think very carefully before supporting any of these resolutions which may be nonbinding on the President but, nevertheless, have severe consequences to our enemies, to our allies, and to the troops we put into harm's way. This is serious business we are about. We need to consider it seriously and not undercut the troops we put in harm's way.

Legislative Session

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

The Presiding Officer - Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

Pending:

The Presiding Officer - Under the previous order, the time until 12:15 p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the time from 11:55 to 12:05 under the control of the minority leader, and the time from 12:05 to 12:15 under the control of the majority leader. The Senator from Ohio.

Mr. Brown. Ohio - Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes to speak on the minimum wage.

The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Sherrod Brown-OH)

Mr. Brown. Ohio - Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, Rev. Jim Wallis and Rev. Bob Griswold—who was then-head of the Episcopal Church—presented to Congress a document that proved to be both prophetic and practical.

The basic tenets were that budgets are moral documents—these are coming from two people of faith, religious leaders in our country—and our values are represented by how we craft those documents.

The same can be said for legislation, and the same values represented in the fight, for example, to raise the minimum wage.

As wages have stagnated in States such as Ohio, CEO salaries have skyrocketed. And while Congress voted time and again to raise its own pay--six times in the 10 years since the minimum wage has been raised—it left behind millions of Americans who work hard, who play by the rules, and who too often have so little to show for their hard work.

In my home State of Ohio, voters in November echoed the national cry for social and economic justice by voting in favor of a ballot initiative to raise our State's minimum wage.

In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King said:

Equality means dignity. And dignity means a job and a paycheck that lasts through the week.

It is unacceptable that someone can work full time—and work hard—and not be able to lift her family out of poverty or even pay her bills. For too long Government priorities rewarded a system that allowed a minimum wage worker to earn less than $11,000 a year. Yet some CEOs in our great country make more than $11,000 an hour.

Those who vote against the minimum wage this week--those who have blocked a minimum wage increase in the House of Representatives and in this Senate for a decade--are saying to minimum wage workers such as the single mother working as a chambermaid in Cleveland and a farm worker outside Toledo and a janitor in Zanesville that they do not deserve a fraction--not a fraction--of what we get.

While the cost of living has gone up, the investment in workers has slowly declined. Family budgets are strained because of stagnant wages but pushed to the breaking point when you factor in soaring tuition costs, health care costs, and energy costs.

Yet while wages have stayed stagnant or gone down, worker productivity in this country, as Senator Kennedy showed a moment ago, continues to go up. Those workers are not sharing in the wealth they are creating for their employers. It is time Congress stood on the side of the working men and women in this country.

This issue is not just about workers. Raising the minimum wage affects entire families and communities. In my State, the minimum wage increase will mean an increase for 500,000 wage earners, with 200,000 children living in those homes.

When workers earn a livable wage—and especially if we can expand the earned-income tax credit, a tax break for those workers—those families, who are working hard and playing by the rules, will spend that money locally, which supports small business and helps strengthen the community.

When workers earn a livable wage, stress and burdens that often cripple families struggling to survive are eased.

When workers earn a livable wage, they are more productive at work, which means thriving companies that can compete in the global economy.

Raising the minimum wage means so much more than a few extra dollars on Friday. It means a path out of poverty.

Raising the minimum wage is an affirmation that this Congress—finally—values American workers. It is about the right family values, and it is about time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

(Michael Enzi-WY)

Mr. Enzi, Wyoming - Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus substitute to H.R. 2. At about the noon hour today, we will be voting to end the debate on the minimum wage bill. Regardless of how that vote turns out, I believe the direction this body has decided upon with regard to minimum wage is clear. And I appreciate it. The direction the Senate has taken is that raising the minimum wage without providing relief for small businesses would be wrong. And now we have a cloture vote on a bill that includes relief for small businesses, which will soften the impact that the minimum wage increase will have on small businesses.

We are trying to keep working families working. The people who run these small businesses are working families, too. They are taking a lot of risk and providing a lot of jobs. In fact, they are the engine that drives the United States. The big companies would like us to think they are. But small businesses create a lot of jobs.

Now, primarily, the jobs we are talking about are for people just entering the labor market, the ones often who dropped out of school, who have very low employment skills. Those small businesses teach them some skills and move them on up to the path of employment. They are a huge part of the job training system in this country and they rarely get any credit for job training.

We have had debate over the last week—and it has just been one week. I would like to point out that on Monday we did not have any votes. On Tuesday we were only allowed two votes. Through the whole week we only had 11 votes. We were not allowed any votes after Thursday, which included all of Friday and all of yesterday. That is really not an open process. That is only three days of voting on amendments.

When we began this session, we talked about having an open process, a very bipartisan process of doing things. I am not sure we got the message from the last election, which was that the American people want us to do these things, but they want us to do them in a bipartisan way. I am hearing some rhetoric on the Senate floor about the Republicans want to do this; and the Democrats want to do that.

What we need to talk about is what we need to do for America. We need to work together on these things. Right now we have a proposal for cloture that includes what both sides have been talking about, that takes care of the minimum wage worker and takes care of the businesses that employ them and gives them the training.

We in the Senate recognize that small businesses have been the steady engine for growing the economy and that they have been the source of new job creation. America's working families rely on small businesses, and small businesses rely on working families.

So I am proud this body has chosen a path that attempts to preserve this segment of the economy which employs so many working men and women. The Senate has recognized that our economy is interdependent. One simply cannot claim credit to be helping workers at the same time they are hurting the businesses that employ them. Recognition of this simple fact is the reason the bill before this body couples a raise in the minimum wage with relief to those businesses and working families that will face the most difficulty in meeting that mandate.

This body has also recognized the even simpler fact that raising the minimum wage is of no benefit to a worker without a job or a job seeker without a prospect.

I take this occasion to urge that these simple, real world truths be recognized by our colleagues in the other Chamber. I have gone through this process before on a number of bills and tried to figure out how it happens. A lot of time there is more animosity between the two Houses than there is between the two parties that serve in those Houses.

I know making any change to the minimum wage bill they sent over will upset them on that end, just as any change they make to a bill on their end upsets us. We send them perfect bills and they have to fiddle with it, and they send us perfect bills and we fiddle with it. There is some animosity between the two Chambers. And then we have to get into the rules as well. All tax measures have to start in the House. That is fine as long as they start them. But there has to be a way to get the process moving.

This bill has a way to get that process moving. It is more cumbersome than it probably ought to be, but I think with cooperation it will work, and I think the House will join us in this effort. It isn't as easy as just taking a small piece of something that affects the economy and doing it in isolation. When we start going to the broader economy, it gets more complicated.

That is why our forefathers designed this great system of cumbersome Government. We have 100 people with 100 views—I don't know, maybe we have 100 people with 200 views, and the House has 435 people with at least an equal number of views. The beauty of our system is that it has to get through this maze of all of these people with different backgrounds and different ideas and different ways of seeing the world, which results in amendments which result usually in things getting better.

It is often complicated, and that slows the process down. That is something we have to work through, but I think any mechanism we have that speeds things up usually results in us winding up with legislation we have to go back and correct. It is a tough system, a long system, but it works.

Unquestionably, as this Congress moves forward, we will need to confront a range of issues facing working families. We have to face the rising cost of health insurance and the availability of that insurance, the necessity and costs of education and job training, and the desire to achieve an appropriate balance between work and family life.

These are important issues, and the way this body has determined to address the minimum wage should give us an outline as to the way such other issues could be approached as well. We need to listen to each other and include those issues that make a difference without upsetting the whole world. It can be done. It has been done.

Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus work together on legislation. They are the ones who put together this tax package. They said: No, this isn't exactly what I like or you like, but it is something we can like together, and it has a chance of passing this body.

I have been pleased that there hasn't been a rage against the tax package they put together, just as there hasn't been a rage against raising the minimum wage. We appear to have two points on which there is agreement. I think that will be reflected later in today's vote, too.

There are other issues. Those other issues have been reflected in amendments from our side. There have been a few, contrary to what has been said on the floor, amendments from the other side as well. When we were in the majority, we didn't put in nearly as many amendments on bills as the Democrats did, and I recognize why offering amendments is important. It is important because we have issues we think are important, and the only chance you have to have them passed on the floor is to put them in a bill as an amendment, if you are in the minority.

So on our side, we will likely offer more amendments to the bills that come up this year than those who got to draft the bill to begin with. They are ideas we want to have considered. We hope they will be considered in a reasonable way and in a reasonable amount of time.

I will be emphasizing to our side the need to keep those reasonable and to keep them within a reasonable timeframe. If we do that, we can progress through a lot of issues, such as the ones I mentioned.

The rising cost and availability of health insurance in this country is at a crisis and we have to do something about it. There are a number of plans that are floating out there, and all of them—all of them—have some good points to them. None of them is perfect. That bill will have to go through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. It probably will. There are ways it can be written, I suppose, where it can be sent through the Judiciary Committee or sent through the Finance Committee. But usually that bill goes through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

The chairman of the committee and I as ranking member of that committee—and it doesn't matter what session of Congress we are talking about or what decade of Congress you are talking about—the chairman and the ranking member in that committee often have a huge disparity of views on how to solve the health, education, labor, and pensions issues.

We adopted 2 years ago a little rule that I found to be very useful when I was in the Wyoming legislature, and that is the 80-20 rule. That is, people agree on 80 percent of the issues and 80 percent of any issue. This isn't just a philosophy for Congress, this is a philosophy for one's daily life. If you are working with other people, you will probably find you will agree on 80 percent of whatever you are talking about. On any particular issue, you usually agree on 80 percent of that issue. If you concentrate on the 80 percent of agreement, there are a lot of possibilities for getting things done. If you concentrate on the 20 percent on which you don't agree, there is very little likelihood that you are going to progress on whatever it is you are talking about.

That is something we have instituted in this committee, and I think that rule has moved it from the most contentious committee to the most productive committee. I don't know if people noticed during the last session of Congress, there were 35 bills brought out of that committee. We got 25 of them considered in the Senate and even helped the House to get 2 of theirs through. So we helped to get 27 bills signed by the President. That is at least 20 more than usual for any committee and probably about 24 more than usual for any committee.

There are disadvantages to that. The press likes a good fight, and the press is more than willing to report on a good fight. We didn't have fights on those 27 bills that were signed. The most contentious one was the pension bill. The pension bill was 980 pages. It covers how to save people's pensions, how to make sure when they retire they will get what they have been promised, what they deserve, what they want, something that will give them quality of life in retirement. We made the most significant change in pension law in 30 years.

I remember that we had an agreement before we ever brought it to the floor that there would be 1 hour of debate, two amendments, and the final vote. I went to the Parliamentarian at that time and explained what we were doing and made sure it was getting written up properly so we could do that the moment we began the debate.

I asked: When is the last time that complicated of a bill had that kind of an agreement?

The words I heard back were: Not in my lifetime.

So it is possible to take difficult bills and arrive at agreement that will move the people's business forward.

The unfortunate thing for the people of America is that when they are watching us on this floor, what they usually get to see is the 20 percent with which we disagree, the 20 percent we are not going to give in on, the 20 percent that defines us.

I will be urging my side, and I have said it several times, there are issues that define us, but every issue is not an issue that defines us. We will probably be trying to figure out a way on every bill to make it a defining bill. With the amendments we have done on this bill, there has been some defining. But we have an opportunity today—I think it is going to happen at 12:15 p.m.—to invoke cloture on the package that includes what was asked for by this side and delivered by the other side.

That is pretty landmark. That is pretty good. We do have the other business that needs to get done. It doesn't have to be done on this bill. Maybe in the meantime there are some issues we can work on—the issues we talked about in some of these amendments—where we can reach that 80 percent agreement and we can move on with those issues.

In addressing the minimum wage, we have rejected the notion that it will be a clean bill. Ultimately, we did so because it is not a clean issue. By that, I mean neither the real world nor questions of national economics nor social policy are as simple as we would like them to be. Quite the contrary. They are complex and they are interrelated. While pretending that economic or social issues are simple, it often makes for great rhetoric here, and it makes for great politics, but it seldom makes responsible policy. Around here, clean more often than not simply means "do it my way" and does not respect the democratic process and allow the Senate to work its will.

I am pleased we rejected such false simplicity and chose the course of coupling an increased wage with provisions that will assist these small business employers who will be facing the greatest difficulties in paying these increased costs.

I hope we do not forget the wisdom of this approach as we address other workplace, economic, and social issues. None of these are simple and none, no matter how laudable the end, are without costs or free from the danger of unintended consequences where, in an effort to do some good, we wind up causing great harm.

I am also heartened that in the course of this debate, this body has begun to recognize what I know from my life to be true. Working families are not only those who are employed by businesses, they are also those who own the businesses.

I have noted many times that I was a small business owner, that my wife and I operated mom-and-pop shoe stores in Wyoming and Montana. My story is not unique, particularly in today's economy. I know all small business owners have two families: their own and the families of those who work for them. I also know that business owners feel the pressure of rising costs, the dilemma of difficult options, and the uncomfortable squeeze of modern life in both of their families as much as many workers do on their own.

One will find that small business people are more connected to their workers. They work with them shoulder to shoulder on a daily basis. They know what is happening in their lives. I believe we have begun to realize this reality in the way we approach the minimum wage legislation. I do not think we should lose sight of it as it moves through this Congress.

I also note that while I am pleased with the overall approach this body adopted, I am somewhat disappointed that it was not as complete as it could have been. In the event cloture is invoked, we would not have addressed a range of issues that were offered as early amendments and should have been considered and voted on. In this respect, I mention again those I mentioned late last week: Senator Gregg's amendment on employee option time, something we allow Federal sector employees to do; Senator DeMint's amendment dealing with the same matter, as well as Senator Burr's amendment on health insurance costs; and Senator Vitter's amendment that would have provided measured monetary relief for small businesses that make inadvertent paperwork errors in providing Government-required information—first-time basis, corrected, no impact to the employee.

All of these were well reasoned, would have provided benefits in addition to or in counterbalance to a minimum wage hike, and all were entitled to due consideration and a vote in this Chamber. We were not allowed to have a vote. Many have charged the majority denied us a vote on these amendments because they would have been adopted and that would have somehow represented a win for Republicans. Therefore, goes the theory, voting on these amendments was prevented.

Whether true or not, the lack of a vote on these amendments does nothing to lend credence to the view that Congress's partisanship too often trumps positive progress. The reality is good ideas do not simply fade away, and that if not here and now, then at some point in this Congress these and other good ideas must be given consideration and must be voted on. Fairness demands it, and our responsibility to working families and small businesses requires it.

A vote for cloture is a vote for small business and working families. It is a vote for a well-balanced and bipartisan solution. I am pleased that we are at this point. I will ask my colleagues to vote for cloture.

(Jim DeMint-SC)

Mr. DeMint, South Carolina - Mr. President, I intend to vote against the bill before us today because it really does not do anything to help low wage workers in this country in supporting families, buying health care, or giving them the flexibility they need to deal with family issues as well as hold a full-time job. I have consistently opposed a Federal wage mandate because I believe it is bad policy that hurts the very people we are trying to help with this bill. Despite that, I have sought to engage in constructive debate on this bill and offer amendments that would make it better. Unfortunately, over the course of this discussion, I have been forced to conclude that this whole debate is--let's just say less than honest. What we are talking about here in the Senate is not really about helping low-income workers; this is about mandating a starting wage, not a minimum wage, in a select group of States. This is a mandated starting wage because the facts show that two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year. We also know that most of these are working for restaurants and small businesses, and most of them are teenagers or young folks working part time.

The Democratic proposal before us targets certain States disproportionately while leaving many other States completely or relatively unaffected. If passed, my home State of South Carolina would be subjected to a 41-percent increase in the Federal mandate and the inevitable job loss that will come with this. However, States such as California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, and others would not be required to raise their minimum wage at all. This is because 28 States plus the District of Columbia have passed laws raising their minimum wage above the federally mandated $5.15 per hour. Some of those States, such as the ones I just mentioned, have gone well beyond the $7.25 which this Federal mandate will implement.

If we are to have a minimum wage at all, it is better to have a Federalist system of government and individual States could continue to set their own minimum wage levels, rather than the Federal Government. After all, different States have very different economies as well as very different costs of living. We know that a dollar will go a lot further in San Antonio than in San Francisco, and we need to recognize that. Mr. President, $7.25 in San Francisco is not a bit of help, but in another State that is a lot more money.

To that effect, I have offered an amendment to the current proposal that would have raised the minimum wage $2.10 in every State across this land. Had my amendment been adopted, this bill would have at least been more fair in the way it imposed its unfunded mandate. Ironically, the motion to strike my amendment was based on the fact that it was an unfunded Federal mandate, which is precisely what the underlying bill is at this point.

We have tried to add some other provisions. There is some tax relief for small businesses that mostly hire minimum wage workers, but we have not gone nearly far enough.

I heard my dear colleague from Massachusetts oppose very vocally any tax relief for small businesses that will bear the brunt of an increased minimum wage. I think it is just important to point out what we are trying to do. This is a chart which compares the amount of, what some of us would call porkbarrel spending for what we call the Boston Big Dig. The Federal Government's part of bailing this out is $8.5 billion. What we are asking for, for thousands of businesses and millions of low wage workers across this country, is tax relief of less than that, that would help people keep more workers and be more profitable.

I understand I am running out of time. I hope this whole debate about helping low wage workers would include those areas which will really help people who are working full time at $8, $10, $12 an hour and having a difficult time getting by: If we could make that health care more accessible and more affordable; if we could do for them what we do for Federal Government workers and give them flexibility so if they need an afternoon off to drive on a field trip one day on one week, they can work an extra 4 or 5 hours the next week to make it up, then they call it even--there is no overtime, there is no penalty. Government workers get it, but we will not give that same benefit to workers all across this country.

I am going to vote against cloture on this bill because cloture is designed to cut off debate. Many of the amendments that would help low wage workers are being eliminated. What it comes down to is just an unfunded mandate on several States, leaving out others.

(Edward Kennedy-MA)

Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts - Mr. President, just to put this whole issue in some perspective, I thought I would just take a minute or two to refresh both this body and those who are interested in this issue about increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, about what has happened to workers and what has happened, basically, to the middle class over the period of the last years.

Looking at this chart here, from 1947 to 1973, this is when the country was moving along together. This shows the different incomes. It divides the incomes of Americans into five different--effectively buckets: the lowest 20 percent, the second 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, the fourth 20 percent, and the top.

If you look at this for a period of 26 years, you will see that all America grew together. The economy worked for all Americans. As a matter of fact, it worked a little bit better for those with the lowest income, but the economy worked for all America. During that period of time, we had Republicans and Democrats alike who voted for the increase in the minimum wage as we increased in productivity. America went along together.

What has happened in the last several years, from 2001 to 2004? Here we have the lowest 20 percent. This represents the low-income groups, the minimum wage workers, then the second, third, middle, fourth, and the highest 20 percent is the gray area, and the top 1 percent is demonstrated by the red area. See what has happened to the country, how we have grown further and further apart--the explosion in wealth for the very top and the collapse of the American promise at the very lowest; the cutting out of millions of Americans from the hopes and the dreams and the idea of a fair and just America.

Those are the statistics. Those are the facts. We had a minimum wage which reflected that progress for 26 years when America grew together. We have now had 10 years of no growth in the minimum wage, and we see America growing further apart. We have a chance to do something about it this noontime. I am hopeful that we will.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't know why it is our friends on the other side have really such a contemptuous attitude about low-income working people. They eliminated the overtime program for 6 million Americans last year--6 million Americans who otherwise would have gotten an increase in the minimum wage. They eliminated that. When we had the crisis down in New Orleans, one of the first things the administration did was eliminate what they call the Davis-Bacon program, which is to provide wages that will be pegged to what the average wage is in that particular region, where construction workers average $29,000 a year. What in the world is wrong with someone making $29,000 a year so that you want to reduce their pay while they are working for the recovery from Katrina? But oh, no, they eliminated that kind of protection. Just as they cut back on the unemployment compensation for workers who were coming out of Katrina, and after the National Academy of Sciences said that with what is happening in the poultry business and the meat-cutting business, with computers, we need to do something primarily about women in the workplace on the issues of ergonomics--no way. No way we are going to look out after workers.

It is difficult for me to understand. What is it about it? What really gets our Republican friends that they just can't stand hard-working people? We will hear a lot of comments and lectures about, let's make work pay, that work paying is a real value. I hope we don't hear that lecture anymore around here from that side. I hope we are not going to hear anymore talk of values about it. The leaders of the great religions are in strong support. I have put those comments into the RECORD. They are in strong support of this. They believe it is a moral issue, to follow the admonition of Saint Matthew: What you do to the least of these, you do unto me. Talk about poverty. Talk about the poor.

This is just about a wage, the minimum wage. But it is about a just wage. What is it about that?

I see my friend from Ohio on the Senate floor. I know he has been interested in and has spoken about the issues of minimum wage and also about what has been happening in the middle class. I am glad to entertain any questions he might have or yield for any comment that he might wish to make.

(Sherrod Brown-OH)

Mr. Brown. Ohio - Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I appreciate especially his discussion about honoring work in this country. We hear talk of family values. We hear talk of honoring people who work hard and play by the rules. Yet, as the Senator recounted, the minimum wage hasn't been increased for 10 years. There has been almost a hostility to workers in this body and down the hall in the House of Representatives, where 6 million workers, as Senator Kennedy pointed out, have lost their overtime or have had their overtime limited. There were attempts to cut the prevailing wage in Louisiana when the average wage of workers in Louisiana in the building trades was only $29,000.

When you look at the charts Senator Kennedy pointed out, you see there is an absolute stagnation or decline in wages in the last 5 years for most Americans--for the 80 percent lowest paid Americans, if you will. But the top 20 percent have seen their wages, their salaries, just skyrocket. That is coupled with the fact that 1 percent, the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country possess more of the wealth of this country than the 90 percent lowest of the rest of us.

Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts - Will the Senator yield on that issue?

Mr. Brown - I will be happy to yield.

Mr. Kennedy - The Senator understands. I have listened to him speak very eloquently in his maiden speech about what has happened in the middle class of America. The Senator understands that when we saw productivity increase in the 1960s and 1970s, all during this period when there was economic growth, we all went up together. The rising tide raised all the boats across the country. Then look at what happened. Productivity went up, and the real minimum wage went down.

Does the Senator not share the belief with me that if workers are going to work hard and produce--we have the labor force that is the hardest working labor force in the industrial world. It works longer, harder, and has had the greatest increase in productivity. Does the Senator not agree with me that at least some of that increase in productivity should have been passed on to working families?

Mr. Brown - Absolutely. The real strength of our middle-class economy over the years, the opportunity through education, through hard work that has built a very prosperous country, really has operated under the assumption that if you are more productive, you share in the wealth you create--whether you are a minimum wage worker, whether you are an engineer, whether you are a schoolteacher--whoever you are. You are adding to the wealth of your employer, the wealth of our country, making our country better off.

Clearly, when you talk about a higher minimum wage, when the minimum wage has declined and wages have declined overall, these workers are creating wealth for their employer, but simply are not sharing in that wealth. That is why one of the best selling books out there now is a book called ``War Against The Middle Class.

As Senator Kennedy has said, it is clear that as productivity has gone up, as workers are working harder than ever before, only a relatively small number of people are sharing in the wealth they create or sharing in the productivity gains that have always marked the success of our country and of our economy.

Mr. Kennedy - Mr. President, can I ask the Senator another question. This good Senator was in the House of Representatives last year when the administration limited overtime pay for six million workers, and tens of thousands in my State of Massachusetts--tens of thousands. Close to 60,000 or 70,000 workers lost overtime pay. Overtime pay--if you are going to work more than 40 hours a week, you should be paid overtime. The administration eliminated that overtime pay for workers. They cut back on the protections of Davis-Bacon in the gulf and the recovery of the gulf. The workers down there who were unemployed, they ended the unemployment compensation for those workers who were otherwise eligible for it. This is unemployment compensation.

We want to remind everyone that the workers contribute to the unemployment compensation fund. They contribute as workers. If you don't contribute, you don't get unemployment compensation. So these are workers who have contributed to the fund. The fund was in surplus at that time. These are workers who have worked hard and couldn't find the jobs down there, and the administration cut back on those protections, cut back on the ergonomic protections. Even before the Sago mines, we find out they cut back in the mine safety and on safety officials. What is it? What is it, if the Senator from Ohio can help me.

I know about the great loss of jobs because of the support for tax incentives that sent jobs overseas and the failure to try and turn off that spigot. That means something for the middle-class workers. So if you add all of those together--we will find a chance now at 12 o'clock--if you add all of these together, we find the hostility--I call it hostility, not indifference--but hostility to workers, and I have difficulty understanding that.

Maybe the Senator could help me understand what has happened in his State that has been so adversely impacted, closing some of those provisions that affected impacted workers in the trade program.

Mr. Brown - Absolutely. One of our friends from the other side of the aisle said this whole idea of raising the minimum wage is a less than honest effort to help working families. I am nonplussed by that.

Senator Kennedy uses the term "hostility" toward workers. We are seeing more productivity and lower wages, except higher salaries for a relatively small number of people. That is not the American way. It is not the way we were taught in this country to honor work. It is not the way we were taught--to work hard and play by the rules.

Then, on top of that, we are now building more and more tax systems that give the greatest tax benefits to the wealthiest, that 20 percent squeezed out of that 1 percent who are absolutely doing the best, and we do no significant tax relief for working families, no significant tax relief for minimum wage workers. We are not willing to address the earned income tax credit, we are not willing to address helping those middle-class workers who are playing by the rules.

Mr. Kennedy - Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more question, I appreciate him mentioning the earned income tax credit, because that can make a difference for families of three or more. They benefit with the earned income tax credit more than the minimum wage. If it is only an individual worker, an individual with a single child, they will benefit more with the increase. But the Senator is right, we ought to be trying to look at these issues in some harmony. But we don't hear any voices on that side to say: OK, Senator, if you want an increase in the minimum wage, we will give an increase in the earned income tax benefit. We will sit down and work something out. We don't hear any of that.

I want to draw to the attention of the Senator the fact that it has been 10 years since we have had an increase in the minimum wage, and over that period of time we have provided $276 billion in tax breaks for corporations, $36 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. We hear around here on the floor: Well, we haven't given the businesses enough and we have to put some more tax breaks on here in order to get an increase in the minimum wage.

Does the Senator buy that argument?

Mr. Brown - No, I don't buy that argument. I came from the House of Representatives where I was for 14 years. I saw the minimum wage increase basically in 1 day in the

House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago. We are now on the eighth day of delaying this minimum wage vote. The people who oppose this minimum wage don't think minimum wage workers should get a fraction of what we get in this body--the salary and benefits; they shouldn't even get a fraction of what we get. They are still unwilling to raise the minimum wage, just standing pure and simple.

The elections last year showed how many voters feel this Government has betrayed the middle class--betrayed them. They wanted to increase the minimum wage straightforwardly. We should have been able to pass on an up-or-down vote quickly the minimum wage. We can deal with tax issues later as this body always does. This should have been done more quickly. But there is, as Senator Kennedy said, that hostility toward workers, whether it is overtime, whether it is Katrina workers, whether it is the refusal to raise the earned income tax credit, or whether it is their reluctance over 10 years, their digging-in reluctance against raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Kennedy - Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we are here on day seven now of this discussion. We had 16 days where we talked about the minimum wage another time. And this past week, since we started this debate, every Member of Congress has made $3,840 in the last week. Mr. President, $3,840 is what a minimum wage worker would make in 4 months--4 months. Three thousand eight hundred dollars, every Member of this Senate.

Does the Senator find it somewhat troublesome that we are getting paid $3,800 in this past week and we are standing here against an increase in the minimum wage, from $5.15 to $7.25, over a 2-year period? Does the Senator not share with me this extraordinary inequality that is so evident here in this body? Does he find it, as do I, highly depressing in terms of the actions of this body--not in terms of our will to continue fighting, but I was thinking of appropriate words and I kept rejecting the ones I was thinking about.

Mr. Brown - Mr. President, let's look at the kind of work the minimum wage workers are doing. They are hotel workers in Cincinnati. They are farm workers in western Ohio. They are people who are working every bit as hard, and many would argue much harder, at much more difficult jobs in many ways while, as Senator Kennedy said, we have made more in a week than they have made in 2 or 3 months. That is what makes for this Chamber's inability or unwillingness to pass this minimum wage increase more quickly--rather than continued delay, continued delay, continued delay, rather than having to do these tax breaks for some of their contributors, rather than do a straight up-or-down vote on whether we should increase the minimum wage for these workers who have worked hard and played by the rules. Don't they deserve a straight up-or-down vote?

Let's pass the minimum wage. Let's give them a chance, to bring up the minimum wage, to make up for the decline in the real value of the minimum wage over the last 10 years.

Again, as Senator Kennedy has said, 6 times in the last 10 years while the House and Senate have refused to increase the minimum wage, 6 different times, these 2 bodies increased our own pay. That is shameful. That is reprehensible, when I hear my friends in this body or in Government talk about family values. Let's talk about real family values. Let's talk about making it possible for families to take care of their children, give their children a chance, an opportunity for education, an opportunity to find a decent job in the greatest country in the world.

Mr. Kennedy - Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

The Presiding Officer - One minute.

Mr. Kennedy - Just in that time, Ohio addressed the minimum wage, an increase in the minimum wage. Could the Senator in the last minute or so tell us what you found in traveling around, what was on people's minds and why they wanted to vote for it?

Mr. Brown - I found overwhelming support for the minimum wage. In Ohio, 500,000 people got a raise because of what the voters in Ohio did in November, with overwhelming support of the minimum wage. Two hundred thousand children live in those 500,000 homes. Those are still families who often don't have health insurance, who often have great problems finding daycare for their children when they are holding their minimum wage jobs. Those are families who are struggling to provide the opportunity for their children to go to school. We know all that. At least one thing we can do here is increase the minimum wage to give those families--not just in Youngstown and in Ravenna, and not just in Springfield and in Xenia--a real chance to raise their children.

Mr. Kennedy -I thank the Senator. I believe our time has expired.

The Presiding Officer - Under the previous order, there is 10 minutes reserved for the Republican leader at this time.

(Michael Enzi-WY)

Mr. Enzi, Wyoming - Mr. President, the Republican leader has given me his time unless he should appear on the floor, and so I will do that.

I am a little disturbed about what I have heard here in the last several speeches this morning. The vote we are about to have is on whether the minimum wage will increase and there will be tax breaks for small businesses.

When we returned for this session of Congress, we had a number of bipartisan meetings, and I was pleased we had bipartisan meetings and talked about how we could work together and why we needed to work together for America. We talked about minimum wage a little bit, and I even saw newspaper articles where the majority leader and others on the Democratic side talked about the importance of having tax breaks for small business to take care of the impact from the increase in the minimum wage. I was encouraged by that. I thought: We are having some bipartisanship here. We are having some working together. I am encouraged.

Now, of course, the minimum wage came to the floor and I felt for a while it was a bait and switch. After Senator Baucus, the Senator from Montana, and Senator Grassley, the Senator from Iowa, worked together to come up with this tax package and the tax package was introduced as a substitute to the bill, I said: I think we are making progress. I think this is going to work. I think it can happen. I think we can work together. I think we can get it done.

Then, of course, we had the cloture vote on the straight minimum wage and I thought: What is going on here? Was that to get our attention and make us feel good and then rip it away? Rip away the comments that were made about the need to help small business? We don't need class warfare in this country.

I keep hearing about a book that was mentioned here, ``The War Against The Middle Class. Well, I am trying to figure out how the minimum wage worker made it into the middle class. I think we are talking about the small businessmen, who are being scrunched in from all angles, who are in the middle class, who are employing the people, sometimes at minimum wage, usually at a minimum skills position, and they train them to get better skills, and when they get better skills and can do more, they get paid more.

I always mention the McDonald's in Cheyenne, WY. A guy there starts people at minimum wage. Now, if they have to be at minimum wage more than about 3 weeks, they are probably not learning the job, probably not showing up on time. But the main point is he has had 3 people who started at minimum wage who now own 21 McDonald's. So there are opportunities out there, but you have to learn and improve to get more wages. We can raise the minimum wage and we are going to raise the minimum wage. And that will take the bottom step out of the ladder and people will be able to step up one more. Then, as we increase prices to help pay for that, unless we have the tax breaks, all we did was raise prices.

I hope we do not get into a class warfare. We do not need hostility to workers and between parties. It is 2 years until we have an election again. We do not need to start campaigns right now. We need to solve problems right now.

We have said one of the problems is the minimum wage, and we are going to solve it. They said we debated this six times in the last 10 years. We have. And every time it was brought up, we needed to do some decreases in taxes for the small businesses to take care of the impact this will have. That part got ignored every time. Consequently, raising of the minimum wage got ignored each time. Hopefully, we will not ignore either message and we will do both. The vote we will have this morning will be in regard to that.

Now, I will have to take some time after the vote and talk about some of the things that were raised because we cannot discuss them in a short period of time. There was talk about overtime taken away. We need to have debate on that. There was talk about unemployment. We need to have a little debate on it. When we are talking about safety officials at mines being cut back, we need to have a talk about that.

Senator Kennedy, I, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Isakson went to West Virginia and looked at the Sago mine and talked to the people there. We talked to the mine officials. We talked to union officials. We talked to the families. We did a bill in 3 months that changed mine safety for the first time in 28 years because we worked together. We did not try to find divisions. We tried to find places we could come together.

Now, safety officials were cut back. They were cut back all over the Nation. The production of coal went down decidedly. Mines were closed. There were less mines. Of course, then the price of coal came back up and the mines opened again, and everything lags with the Federal Government.

There are problems we need to solve, but we do not need to make them into a war. We need to solve the problems that are involved in these instances and keep moving on for America. That is the vote we will take later today: a chance to move on for America. We will raise the minimum wage, and we are going to help out the small businesses, those people with all the risk out there who are employing people and training people so that they can continue to hire those people and pay those people so we can have the jobs and the training that the small business provides.

I hope that is the track we will go down. I know it will not be unanimous on either side, but we can get there if we work together.

I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.

(Edward Kennedy-MA)

Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts - In the last few minutes, let me discuss what this issue is about. This issue is about John Hosier from Oklahoma who works at the Salvation Army for $6 an hour. He provides the family's sole paycheck. John and his wife Tina and their two children live on barely $200 a week. The family receives Government aid in the form of Medicare and food stamps but is still living on the verge of poverty. He said:

It's hard on a small income ..... if it wasn't for the Salvation Army, I don't know where I'd be.

This is a vote on John Hosier.

This is a vote for Elizabeth Lipp of Missouri, a 21-year-old single mom. Elizabeth works two jobs, which, prior to a Missouri ballot initiative, paid $5.15. On weekdays Elizabeth worked as a housekeeper, and on the weekends she worked as a nurse's aide at a convalescent and retirement home. She lives with her mother and says:

Getting by on $5.15 was a struggle. I pay out $75 a week alone for child care.

Extra money would help her mother with the bills, help pay off the car, and help her put aside some savings.

This is about Peggy Fraley from Wichita, KS, a 60-year-old grandmother. Her daughter, Karla, has five children, ages 6 to 17. Peggy works as a receptionist. Karla is a food service worker. Both women are working $5.15-an-hour jobs. The family is struggling to get by. Peggy explains:

We can barely make it ..... but we've got each other. That's richer sometimes.

There it is. Those are the people we are fighting for and standing with. Those are the people we believe ought to get an increase from $5.15 to $7.25.

You can call that a paycheck. It is just a paycheck. What Democrats are fighting for is a just paycheck.

Finally, we have to understand at the end of this debate, these are our fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters, citizens in the United States of America. These are men and women of dignity, who take pride in the job they do. It is a difficult job, but they still do it. They care about their children, they have hopeful dreams for their children.

We are a Nation of many faiths, but all of the faiths talk about, and the Bible teaches the evilness of exploitation of the poor to profit the rich. All faiths say that is wrong. They all say that is wrong.

St. Matthew's Gospel says: Whatever you have done unto the least of my brethren, you have done unto me.

It is time we reach out to these men and women of dignity, these men and women--primarily women--who have children. This is a women's issue, it is a children's issue, it is a fairness issue. It is an issue of basic moral fairness. It is a civil rights issue because so many of those men and women are men and women of color. And, most of all, it is a fairness issue. In the United States of America, the richest country in the world, we are saying to those people who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year: You shouldn't have to live in poverty. The other side says no. The other side says no.

We stand for those individuals. It is the right thing to do. It is a defining issue of fairness and decency, and it is an indication of what we as Americans feel about our fellow citizens. I hope we will get a strong vote in favor.

Just remember, if there is any question in your mind, in the last week, the last 7 days, Senators have made $3,800. Every Member of this Senate has earned that, and Members are going to vote no? Members are going to vote no to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years? And we have just earned $3,800 in 1 week?

Opposing the increase in the minimum wage is wrong. It is wrong. Six months after an election and 2 years before an election, it is wrong. It is wrong every single day of the year.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

(Harry Reid-NV) -Majority Leader

Mr. Harry Reid, Majority Leader - Mr. President, the distinguished minority manager of this bill is easy to get along with. I want the record spread with the fact that he is a gentleman. I wish every Member in this Senate was as easy to work with as the Senator from Wyoming.

However, I do have some regard for how we have conducted ourselves on this bill in the majority. I have a memory. I know how things have happened in the past. No amendments, few amendments, or, if cloture was invoked on a bill, those amendments that were germane postcloture did not get a vote.

That is not how we are doing things. They may not have gotten all the votes they wanted, but it is interesting to note that the Members offering the amendments are not going to vote for the bill anyway.

We have a procedure. There are amendments germane postcloture, and we will vote on as many of those as we can. I prefer a straight minimum wage bill. The people of America deserve this raise after 10 years. However, the Republicans have said they want these $8 billion in tax cuts for business. If that is the only way we can get this bill out of here, I am willing to do that for the 13 million Americans who depend on minimum wage.

How could someone in the minority vote against what they asked for? We gave them what they asked for. They got all the business tax deductions, tax cuts, and then they are going to vote against cloture? I don't understand.

Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 for 13 million Americans--why can't we do that--and 5.5 million will have wages raised directly, and the other 7.5 million who make near the minimum wage will benefit when the lowest wages are lifted.

As Business Week magazine said a month ago, raising the minimum wage lifts the boat for everybody. I don't think Business Week magazine is seen as a bastion of liberality.

Of the 13 million Americans who stand to get a raise, more than 60 percent are women. For the majority of those women, that is the only money they get for them and their families. Almost 40 percent of the people who draw minimum wage are people of color. Eighty percent of the people who draw minimum wage are adults, many of them senior citizens. They are not all kids at McDonald's flipping hamburgers.

Mr. President, $7.25 may not seem like a lot of money in Washington, but it would mean almost $4,500 a year for the Nation's poorest people, the poorest working people in America. Do we want to drive those poor working people into welfare? The answer is, no.

Mr. President, $4,500 is a lot of money: 15 months of groceries for a family of three; 19 months of utilities; 8 months of rent. It helps with childcare and additional things they simply do not have the money to splurge on now.

After 10 years, it is time to stop talking about this issue and give the working poor of this country a raise after 10 years. I also advise my friends the majority believes this raise in the minimum wage is way overdue.

Everyone should understand, if cloture is not invoked, we are through with minimum wage. We are going to go to other matters. The first thing we go to is Iraq. We have to start debating Iraq this afternoon. Everyone should understand we are not going to come back in a day or two or 2 or 3 weeks. We have a lot of things to do. We have to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower priced drugs for the people who are Medicare recipients. We want to do something about stem cell. We want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We want to pass appropriations bills. And we want to pass immigration reform this year. Minimum wage is dead this year because of the minority. If they do not vote for cloture, it is over with.

I yield the floor.

Ammendment No. 100-CLOTURE MOTION

The Presiding Officer - Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid (for Baucus) substitute amendment No. 100 to Calendar No. 5, H.R. 2, providing for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. Ted Kennedy, Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Inouye, Byron L. Dorgan, Jeff Bingaman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jack Reed, Barbara Boxer, Daniel K. Akaka, Max Baucus, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkin, Robert Menendez, Tom Carper, Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Richard Durbin.

The Presiding Officer - By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on amendment No. 100, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, an amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.

Mr. Durbin, Illinois - I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Mr. Lott, Mississippi - The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).

The Presiding Officer - Are they are any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 87, nays 10, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.

YEAS -87
NAYS -10
NOT VOTING -3

The Presiding Officer - On this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 10. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

Mr. Durbin - I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts - I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Massachusetts.

(Edward Kennedy-MA)

Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts - Mr. President, I thank the Senate. That was an extraordinarily strong vote. It certainly indicates that important progress is going to be made on this issue. I hope the sooner the better. We do have eight pending amendments that are germane. We are hopeful we can consider the DeMint amendment or a vote in relation to that. I understand there is a budget point of order on that that might be made. We look forward to trying to dispose of other amendments through the course of the afternoon.

For the benefit of the Members, we have 30 hours now on this particular proposal. We will have, unless the leaders are able to work something out tomorrow, another cloture vote on the underlying legislation.

We are prepared to move ahead on these amendments. I will talk to my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, about them. Of the eight pending amendments, I believe six are under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. We will work that out with the members of the Finance Committee and inform the Senate as soon as possible thereon.

Mr. Dorgan, North Dakota - Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. Kennedy - I am glad to yield.

Mr. Dorgan - I ask the manager, how many days have we been on the bill? I know this is legislation to increase the minimum wage. It has been on the floor for some long while. I understand there is a 30-hour postcloture period. I am curious: How long we have been on this bill and might we expect, for example, tomorrow to be able to complete legislation that would increase the minimum wage after 10 long years?

Mr. Kennedy - To answer the Senator, this is the seventh day we have been on the minimum wage legislation. During this debate we have had 16 days where the Senate has addressed an increase in the minimum wage where we were unable to get a successful outcome. This is a subject that Members can understand quite readily. In one week since we started this, we have all received over $3,800 in pay ourselves, but we haven't increased the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over a 2-year period. I share the Senator's frustration about progress, the time it has taken us to get to this point. I hope our leaders can find a pathway that can expedite the process. Of the remaining issues, one is a DeMint amendment, which we have already addressed, that is adding the minimum wage on to all of the States rather than following the minimum wage standard. The other is a Chambliss amendment that ought to be on an immigration bill that deals with the AgJOBS payment. That is suitable for that rather than being on the minimum wage bill. But we are going to deal with these issues and do it in an expeditious way and continue to move forward.

Minimum wage workers ought to understand, though, that this was an important vote we have taken. I don't wish to be overly hopeful or optimistic, but I think help is on its way.

Mr. Dorgan - Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for one more question, this vote was encouraging. It gives us an opportunity to take another step. It has been a long and tortured trail because this subject has been discussed not just this year but in the last session and the session before that. This has been a long and tortured trail to get an increase in the minimum wage after 10 long years. My hope is that this cloture vote will give us an understanding that there is good will on all sides and a desire to move forward and get this completed. My hope is that we can complete this tomorrow. We have a lot of other issues Senator Reid and others have suggested we ought to be moving to.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Kennedy - I thank the Senator.

(Michael Enzi-WY)

Mr. Enzi, Wyoming - Mr. President, over the lunch hour, or shortly after that, the Senator from Massachusetts and I will work together to see what we can do on the amendments, to see if they can be voted on as expeditiously as possible. I, too, feel compelled to address the question of the Senator from North Dakota about the number of days we counted on this. The minority will always count the days on a bill as those days we are allowed to vote. We only voted three out of seven, until today when we got the second cloture vote. We will insist we get votes on amendments as we proceed through this bill and other bills.

I am pleased the Senator from Massachusetts is willing to work with us to see what we can do on the outstanding amendments.

(Trent Lott-MS)

Mr. Lott, Mississippi - addressed the Chair.

The Presiding Officer - The Senator should be advised that there is an order to recess. Further debate would require unanimous consent.

Mr. Lott - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order to recess be extended by 2 minutes so I may respond to some of the questions that have been raised.

The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Lott - Mr. President, let me point out that was an important vote we had. It was overwhelming. The Senate voted for cloture 87 to 10. So there is not going to be any prolonged, dilatory action here. Republicans and Democrats want to get this bill to conclusion. People on both sides of the aisle want to make sure that we don't act on this legislation in such a way that we wind up costing people jobs or costing small business men and women the opportunity to provide jobs.

We are making progress. The Finance Committee came out with a unanimous, bipartisan package which is now going to be a part of what we do here. We are going to get through this process in a reasonable period of time.

Our leaders, I am sure, are talking about how exactly we can get to conclusion and what we will go to next. But we have only had about 3 days, as was pointed out, on which we were actually dealing with amendments and making progress.

There have been 76 amendments filed. There are still 26 pending. We have disposed of 17 amendments. So we are making progress. But the vote that just took place did block some Members who had legitimate amendments which are relevant, although they are not germane postcloture, and there are a few amendments that are germane postcloture. So I assume we will get to a conclusion after some of those amendments are considered, and we will complete this legislation before this week is out and then we can move on to the next issue which is of concern to everybody, and that is the Iraq resolution.

I wanted the RECORD to reflect we are making progress and that there is not an action out of the ordinary to delay this bill. We have been through this before, and actually we are going to complete action in what is probably about a normal period of time for this type of legislation.

I yield the floor.

Recess

(XXXX-XX)

Mr. Enzi, Wyoming - Mr. President

Amendment No. XXXX to Amenment No. 157

Mr. Durbin, Illinois - Madam President.....

Legislative Session

The legislative session of the Senate for January 30, 2007 can be found here, and begins with...

Resources

Related areas

Retrieved from "http://localhost../../../s/e/n/Senate_Record_-_January_30%2C_2007_31c3.html"

This page was last modified 09:15, 4 February 2007 by dKosopedia user Lestatdelc. Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.


[Main Page]
Daily Kos
DailyKos FAQ
View source
Discuss this page
Page history
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Bug reports