Senate Record 2- January 26, 2007
From dKosopedia
| Congressional Record | |
|---|---|
| Senate - January 26, 2007 - week 4 | |
| 110th - United States Congress | |
| |
| Senate Majority Leader | Harry Reid |
| Minority Leader | Mitch McConnell |
| Previous | morning session |
| Next | Monday - January 29, 2007 |
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 26, 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.
On the Floor
Morning Session (cont.) - Senate - Friday, January 25, 2007
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
HONORING SHARON RICHIE
[Begin Insert]
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I honor Sharon Richie of Watertown, SD. This month Sharon retired from the U.S. Department of Agriculture after 17 years of dedicated Federal service.
Sharon has worked in the multifamily housing program in Watertown for the past 15 years and is well-known and appreciated by the managers of the housing projects. She has been a dedicated employee and is well-respected for her knowledge of the program and her willingness to go the extra mile to assist her clients. Sharon has played an integral role in providing housing for low-income tenants in South Dakota throughout her career.
Sharon has also been an active member of the Watertown community. Prior to working for the Department of Agriculture, Sharon was a hairdresser for 25 years, as well as being a teacher's aid and substitute teacher for the Deuel School System. She also managed a supper club in Clear Lake and Altamont.
In addition, Sharon has been a valuable asset to South Dakota's agricultural community. Over the past years, she has worked facilitating several rodeos throughout the region. She has organized and judged several rodeo queen contests for groups including the PRCA, local high school and 4-H rodeos. Sharon also enjoys helping out her husband Cork with their livestock handling equipment business. She is also a mother of 9 children, a grandmother to 23 grandchildren, and a great-grandmother to 2 great-grandchildren.
It is with great honor that I rise today to remember and recognize the service provided by Sharon Richie. On behalf of the citizens of South Dakota, I wish Sharon Richie all the best in her retirement.�
[End Insert]
RECOGNIZING FLOWERS FOODS
[Begin Insert]
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the recent accomplishments of a successful business that is headquartered and was founded in my home State of Georgia, Flowers Foods. Flowers Foods is a leader in the baking industry with fresh products distributed throughout the Southeast, Southwest, and Mid-Atlantic States. Flowers Foods frozen products can be found nationwide.
Forbes magazine recently named Flowers Foods to its prestigious list of the 400 Best Big Companies in America. In addition Flowers Foods was also named the best-managed food company among the list of 400 Best Big Companies. It should also be noted that this is the third time that Flowers Foods has been named to Forbes' prestigious list.
In creating the most recent list, Forbes reviewed the financial metrics, Wall Street forecast, corporate governance ratings and other public information of over 1,000 of the largest publicly traded companies in America. Once Forbes narrows this list down to 400 then they select a best-managed company from each of the 26 industry areas that are represented in the Best Big Companies list. The selection of the best-managed company for each represented industry is based on financial performance, leadership, innovation and execution.
Flowers Foods has continued to be on the cutting edge of bakery products and technology since William Howard and Joseph Hampton Flowers opened Flowers Baking Company in Fitzgerald, Georgia in 1933. When the company first opened in 1933 they had the capacity to produce 30,000 loaves of bread each day. In 1999, Flowers Foods became the first wholesale baker to offer a sugar-free bread and they later became the first commercial baker to introduce a low-carb bread selection.
Through the years Flowers Foods has produced and marketed a variety of fresh and frozen bakery foods under name brands such as Nature's Own, Cobblestone Mill, Sunbeam Bread, ButterKrust, Whitewheat, Bunny Bread, BlueBird, Mrs. Freshley's, European Bakers, Mi Casa and Tesoritos. It is no wonder that they are a market leader with this varied mix of brands and products that ensures that there is something tasty for everyone.
Not only has Flowers Foods product line grown since its founding in 1933 but their expansive operation has also grown. Their operations now include thirty-six bakeries that stretch from the Southwest to the Mid-Atlantic regions. These efficient and technologically advanced bakeries allow Flowers Foods to supply retailers throughout a large portion of the United States with a constant supply of fresh products.
I am extremely proud of the recognition that Flowers Foods has received from Forbes magazine. I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to recognize Flowers Foods.�
[End Insert]
RECOGNIZING LESTER KARAS
[Begin Insert]
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Lester Karas who was honored by the community of Deadwood for his dedicated service to the community's young people. The Deadwood mayor declared December 5, 2006, Les Karas Day in honor of his outstanding commitment and dedication to the safety of the community's elementary school students.
Mr. Karas serves as a volunteer crossing-guard for the students of Lead-Deadwood Elementary school. He plays an important role in keeping these students safe as they travel back and forth from school. In addition, Mr. Karas teaches the children good safety habits that they will use throughout their lives.
South Dakota's communities are held together by volunteers like Mr. Karas who dedicate their time and energy to helping those around them. It gives me great pleasure to commemorate Lester Karas on this special occasion and to wish him continued success in the years to come.�
[End Insert]
MEASURES DISCHARGED
The following measure was discharged from the Committee on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
S. 172 - A bill to prohibit Federal funding for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 403 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ENZI, and Mr. CONRAD):
S. 404 - A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements by September 30, 2007; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. ENSIGN):
S. 405 - A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under part A of title I may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. SPECTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BOND, Mr. BURR, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. PRYOR, and Mrs. LINCOLN):
S. 406 - A bill to ensure local governments have the flexibility needed to enhance decision-making regarding certain mass transit projects; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. CORNYN):
S. 407 - A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to designate a portion of Interstate Route 14 as a high priority corridor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. BURR, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. BUNNING):
S. 408 - A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and provide opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. DORGAN):
S. 409 - A bill to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the State of North Dakota; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. DORGAN):
S. 410 - A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to direct the Secretary of the Army to provide assistance to design and construct a project to provide a continued safe and reliable municipal water supply system for Devils Lake, North Dakota; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 411 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credit rate parity for all renewable resources under the electricity production credit; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. OBAMA):
S. 412 - A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. BURR, and Ms. SNOWE):
S. 413 - A bill to amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and the Revised Statutes of the United States to prohibit financial holding companies and national banks from engaging, directly or indirectly, in real estate brokerage or real estate management activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
By Ms. MIKULSKI:
S. 414 - A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act to require that food that contains product from a cloned animal be labeled accordingly, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 233 - At the request of Mr. KENNEDY, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. WYDEN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 233, a bill to prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.
S. 280 - At the request of Mrs. CLINTON, her name was added as a cosponsor of S. 280, a bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and for other purposes.
S. 294 - At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG, the names of the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. COLLINS) were added as cosponsors of S. 294, a bill to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other purposes.
S. 335 - At the request of Mr. DORGAN, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 335, a bill to prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from using private debt collection companies, and for other purposes.
S. 354 - At the request of Mr. LAUTENBERG, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 354, a bill to provide for disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect to campus buildings, and for other purposes.
S. 357 - At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 357, a bill to improve passenger automobile fuel economy and safety, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and for other purposes.
S. 368 - At the request of Mr. BIDEN, the name of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD) was added as a cosponsor of S. 368, a bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes.
S. 374 - At the request of Mr. DOMENICI, the name of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. COCHRAN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 374, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the same capital gains treatment for art and collectibles as for other investment property and to provide that a deduction equal to fair market value shall be allowed for charitable contributions of literary, musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor.
S. 387 - At the request of Mr. WYDEN, the name of the Senator from Illinois (Mr. DURBIN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 387, a bill to prohibit the sale by the Department of Defense of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft.
S. 388 - At the request of Mr. THUNE, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr. HATCH) was added as a cosponsor of S. 388, a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
S. RES. 24 - At the request of Mr. BIDEN, the name of the Senator from New York (Mrs. CLINTON) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 24, a resolution designating January 2007 as ``National Stalking Awareness Month.
S. RES. 29 - At the request of Mr. MCCONNELL, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 29, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and the many lessons still to be learned from Dr. King's example of nonviolence, courage, compassion, dignity, and public service.
AMENDMENT NO. 108 - At the request of Mr. ALEXANDER, his name was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 108 proposed to H.R. 2, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
AMENDMENT NO. 184 - At the request of Mrs. HUTCHISON, the names of the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. LAUTENBERG) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. MENENDEZ) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 184 intended to be proposed to H.R. 2, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
AMENDMENT NO. 198 - At the request of Mr. COLEMAN, the name of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. PRYOR) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 198 intended to be proposed to H.R. 2, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
S. 403
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 403 - A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.
Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2007, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 48.5 cents per mile, nearly three and a half times the volunteer rate.
While we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups.
I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.
Many of my colleagues know the senior meals program is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act, and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. In fact, it is often the case that the senior meals program is the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, these programs are important not only for the essential nutrition services they provide, but also for the many other critical services that the frail elderly may need.
Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. Regrettably, the 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services under such a restriction. And if volunteers cannot be found, their services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services.
The same is true for thousands of other non-profit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.
By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2007 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 48.5 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees nearly three and a half times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.
This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the Tax Code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 403
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 139A the following new section:
``SEC. 139B. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOLUNTEERS.
``(a) In General.--Gross income of an individual does not include amounts received, from an organization described in section 170(c), as reimbursement of operating expenses with respect to use of a passenger automobile for the benefit of such organization. The preceding sentence shall apply only to the extent that such reimbursement would be deductible under this chapter if section 274(d) were applied--
``(1) by using the standard business mileage rate established under such section, and
``(2) as if the individual were an employee of an organization not described in section 170(c).
``(b) No Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any expenses if the individual claims a deduction or credit for such expenses under any other provision of this title.
``(c) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Section 6041 shall not apply with respect to reimbursements excluded from income under subsection (a)..
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139A and inserting the following new item:
``Sec..139B..Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for charity..
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTY LIMITATION FOR THE UNDERPAYMENT OR OVERPAYMENT OF TAX DUE TO FRAUD.
(a) In General.--Section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to fraud and false statements) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Any person who-- and inserting ``(a) In General.--Any person who--, and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Increase in Monetary Limitation for Underpayment or Overpayment of Tax Due to Fraud.--If any portion of any underpayment (as defined in section 6664(a)) or overpayment (as defined in section 6401(a)) of tax required to be shown on a return is attributable to fraudulent action described in subsection (a), the applicable dollar amount under subsection (a) shall in no event be less than an amount equal to such portion. A rule similar to the rule under section 6663(b) shall apply for purposes of determining the portion so attributable..
(b) Increase in Penalties.--
(1) ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX.--Section 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``$100,000 and inserting ``$250,000,
(B) by striking ``$500,000 and inserting ``$1,000,000, and
(C) by striking ``5 years and inserting ``10 years.
(2) WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE RETURN, SUPPLY INFORMATION, OR PAY TAX.--Section 7203 of such Code is amended--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``misdemeanor and inserting ``felony, and
(ii) by striking ``1 year and inserting ``10 years, and
(B) by striking the third sentence.
(3) FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS.--Section 7206(a) of such Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$100,000 and inserting ``$250,000,
(B) by striking ``$500,000 and inserting ``$1,000,000, and
(C) by striking ``3 years and inserting ``5 years.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to underpayments and overpayments attributable to actions occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act.
S. 404
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Thune. Mr. Grassley, Mr. Tester, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan Mr.Enzi, and Mr. Conrad):
S. 404. A bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements by September 30, 2007; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is of great importance to livestock producers and consumers in my home State of Wyoming, and to people across the Nation. My bill would expedite the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, for beef and other agricultural products, and set that date at September 30, 2007. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me in this effort, as does Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Tester, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dorgan, Senator Enzi, and Senator Conrad.
Consumers drive our economy, and it is important that we provide them relevant information about the products they are purchasing. U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory COOL. They have a right to know where their food comes from. Labeling provides more product information, increased consumer choice, and the chance to support American agriculture. Labeling also allows our producers to distinguish their superior products. Trade is not going away. With increased trade comes an increase in the importance of country of origin labeling. Many nations already label food and other products--including the United States. If it is good enough for T-shirts, it ought to be good enough for T-bones.
Mandatory COOL was signed into law with the 2002 Farm Bill. I was an original supporter of COOL during the Farm Bill debate, and I have become increasingly frustrated with efforts to delay its implementation. The latest delay was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, and I voted against the bill for that reason.
Producers and consumers have waited long enough for country of origin labeling. It is high time we make it happen.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 704
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Country of Origin Labeling Act of 2007.
SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 285 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638d) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2008 and inserting ``September 30, 2007.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements for food sold in the United States. Congress originally passed country of origin labeling in the 2002 farm bill, but has twice voted to delay its implementation. Country-of-origin labeling is good for American consumers; it is good for our farmers and ranchers, and the time to implement it is now.
American farmers and ranchers raise the highest quality agricultural goods in the world. Country of origin labeling benefits farmers and ranchers by allowing them to market their world-famous products and consumers who deserve to know where their food comes from.
Any American consumer can look at the tag on their shirt or under the hood of their car and know where it was made. But when meats and produce move into the market place, their origin often becomes a mystery. Considering the importance of food to our health and safety, the growth of our children, and the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, we should have as much information about the origin of our food as possible.
When I was president of the Montana Senate in 2005, I helped lead the fight to pass and implement country of origin labeling because Congress had failed to act. In Montana we are particularly proud of the quality of our agricultural products, and of the people who raise them. Our clean air and water, well preserved natural environment, and modern agricultural practices make consumers want to buy Montana meats, fruits and vegetables. Our State government has given consumers the information and the choice to purchase American raised products through country of origin labeling.
As a dry land farmer from Big Sandy, Montana I know how challenging it is to be successful in agriculture. American farmers and ranchers need all the tools they can get. We no longer compete only with our local neighbors. We compete internationally with South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Country of origin labeling adds value in the market place that was already added by being grown on American farms and ranches.
American consumers will make choices to support our domestic industry and sometimes pay a premium to know that their food comes from the United States. They support American agriculture with its high-quality standards, where money made stays in our rural communities and in the hands of American farmers and ranchers instead of going overseas. The benefits of country of origin labeling are great, the costs are little and consumers have demanded it. Congress needs to take the next step and implement the program.
S. 405
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. ENSIGN)
S. 405. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under part A of title I may be used; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Ensign to introduce legislation to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards instructional services to teach our Nation's neediest students.
Title I provides assistance to almost every school district in the country to serve children attending schools with high numbers of low-income students, from preschool to high school.
Although it has always been the intent of Congress for Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services, the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what instructional services should entail.
This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as States are struggling to comply with the Title I accountability standards established under ``No Child Left Behind.
While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this process as clear to States as possible.
During consideration of "No Child Left Behind, I worked hard to get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate version of the bill.
Unfortunately, during conference consideration, that language was stripped out and in its place language was inserted directing the General Accounting Office (GAO) to report on how states use their Title I funds.
In April 2003, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
What GAO found is that while districts spent no more than 13 percent of Title I funds on administrative services, these findings were based on their own definition "because there is no common definition on what constitutes administrative expenditures.
Therefore, the accounting office could not precisely measure how much of schools' Title I funds were used for administration.
Because uses of Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the states, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling aspects of state priorities to complete the report.
The very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing conclusions to their report.
The report highlights two concerns that I have with the lack of universal definitions in the Title I program: The lack of Federal guidance on effective uses of Title I funds and the government's inability to accurately measure whether the academic needs of low-income students are being met.
This bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for states to retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
Current law on Title I is much too vague.
It says, "a State or local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.
Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the ``education of pupils. This is too ambiguous.
The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document that explains how Title I funds can be used.
Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically prohibited: 1. construction or acquisition of real property; and 2. payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a parent for a salary lost due to attendance at a ``parental involvement meeting.
I believe we should give the Department, States and districts a clearer guidance in law.
This legislation would: Define Title I direct and indirect instructional services. Set a standard for the amount of Title I funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative objectives of this program. Ensure that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received ..... for indirect instructional services.
By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the remaining funds for the indirect costs administering Title I distribution.
Furthermore, by defining direct and indirect services, all States can apply the same standards for how Title I funds are used nationwide.
Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and other instructional personnel, including employee benefits. Intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student achievement. Purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers, and other instructional equipment. Developing and administering curriculum, educational materials and assessments.
Examples of Indirect Services limited to no more than 10 percent of Title I expenditures are: Business services relating to administering the program. Purchasing or providing facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of utility costs. Buying food and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences or meetings, except if necessary for professional development.
My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: first, I believe that states must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn. Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional service.
I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.
If Congress also intended for those funds to educate our neediest children, federal guidance must be given to ensure that it happens.
It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding is only about 9 percent of the total funding for elementary and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total support for public schools.
That is why it is imperative to better focus Title I funds on academic instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged children achieve.
Schools must focus their general administrative budget to pay for expenses that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and retain the majority of federal funds to improve academic achievement.
It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. This is one step towards that important goal.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the record.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 405
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Title I Integrity Act of 2007.
SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) USE OF FUNDS.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received under this part only for direct instructional services and indirect instructional services.
``(2) LIMITATION ON INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.--A local educational agency may use not more than 10 percent of funds received under this part for indirect instructional services.
``(b) Instructional Services.--
``(1) DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.--In this section, the term direct instructional services' means--
``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and corrective actions to improve student achievement;
``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the normal school day and year, including during summer school;
``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional personnel, including providing teachers and instructional personnel with employee benefits;
``(D) the provision of instructional services to prekindergarten children to prepare such children for the transition to kindergarten;
``(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment, and wiring to support instructional equipment;
``(F) the development and administration of curricula, educational materials, and assessments;
``(G) the transportation of students to assist the students in improving academic achievement;
``(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including providing title I coordinators with employee benefits; and
``(I) the provision of professional development for teachers and other instructional personnel.
``(2) INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.--In this section, the term indirect instructional services' includes--
``(A) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the payment of utility costs;
``(B) the payment of travel and attendance costs at conferences or other meetings;
``(C) the payment of legal services;
"(D) the payment of business services, including payroll, purchasing, accounting, and data processing costs; and
"(E) any other services determined appropriate by the Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement..
By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. BURR, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SUNUNU, and Mr. BUNNING):
S. 408. A bill to recognize the heritage of hunting and provide opportunities for continued hunting on Federal public land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007. I cannot stress how important this piece of legislation is to ensure that our Nation's rich hunting heritage is passed on to future generations. This legislation preserves and protects the rights and access to Federal public lands that are vitally important to the sportsmen and women of America.
I have been an avid outdoor sportsman for the better part of my adult life and I must say that the times I have spent hunting with my son or with friends have been some of the best times of my life. Recreational hunting provides numerous opportunities to spend time and share valuable experiences of some of life's lessons with children, family and friends.
It is hard to put a price tag on seeing the joy and excitement in a child's eyes during their first hunting experience. It is one of the reasons that I decided to introduce this legislation. I believe that recreational hunting should be an activity that everyone has the opportunity to experience.
One thing that all sportsmen and women have in common is that they are also conservationists. I, like my fellow hunters, understand that without wildlife conservation our Nation's rich hunting heritage will end with this generation. Sportsmen and women have continued to support sound wildlife management and conservation practices since the time of President Theodore Roosevelt who many consider to be the father of the conservation movement. Each year millions of hunters purchase licenses, permits, and stamps that contribute a significant amount of money to wildlife conservation. These hunters also contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy from other hunting related activities.
Hunting is a rural development activity. It is quite understandable how hunting provides an important supplement to the income of many farmers and ranchers, and even though this legislation pertains to Federal public lands many people overlook the related rural job opportunities that are created by hunting. These include guiding and increased hotel and restaurant activity to name just a few. As our rural population decreases and our urban/suburban increases, hunting is an activity that allows many families to stay connected to the land and in so doing; it creates economic activity for our rural areas.
Recognizing hunters for their role in conservation efforts throughout the U.S. is very important. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act not only recognizes hunters for their conservation efforts but it also requires that Federal public land and water are open to access and use for recreational hunting when and where hunting is appropriate. It is important to note that this bill does not open all Federal public land to hunting.
Another crucial piece of this legislation is that it creates a policy that requires Federal government agencies to manage Federal public land under their jurisdiction in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting opportunities.
As I mentioned before, sportsmen and women have contributed greatly to wildlife conservation over the years and it is important that Congress acknowledge this contribution by ensuring that the amount of Federal public land open to recreational hunting does not decrease. That is why this legislation requires that actions related to the management of Federal public lands should result in a ``no net loss of land area available for recreational hunting.
It is vitally important that we, as Members of the Senate, do all we can to protect and preserve the tradition of hunting so that future generations will be able to experience this great outdoor recreational activity. I believe that the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act of 2007 meets these goals.
I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting and preserving our Nation's rich heritage of hunting by supporting this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 408
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Hunting Heritage Protection Act.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) recreational hunting is an important and traditional recreational activity in which 13,000,000 people in the United States 16 years of age and older participate;
(2) hunters have been and continue to be among the foremost supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation practices in the United States;
(3) persons who hunt and organizations relating to hunting provide direct assistance to wildlife managers and enforcement officers of the Federal Government and State and local governments;
(4) purchases of hunting licenses, permits, and stamps and excise taxes on goods used by hunters have generated billions of dollars for wildlife conservation, research, and management;
(5) recreational hunting is an essential component of effective wildlife management by--
(A) reducing conflicts between people and wildlife; and
(B) providing incentives for the conservation of--
(i) wildlife; and
(ii) habitats and ecosystems on which wildlife depend;
(6) each State has established at least 1 agency staffed by professionally trained wildlife management personnel that has legal authority to manage the wildlife in the State; and
(7) recreational hunting is an environmentally acceptable activity that occurs, and can be provided for, on Federal public land without adverse effects on other uses of the land.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) AGENCY HEAD.--The term ``agency head means the head of any Federal agency that has authority to manage a natural resource or Federal public land on which a natural resource depends.
(2) FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The term ``Federal public land means any land or water that is--
(i) publicly accessible;
(ii) owned by the United States; and
(iii) managed by an executive agency for purposes that include the conservation of natural resources.
(B) EXCLUSION.--The term ``Federal public land does not include any land held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or member of an Indian tribe.
(3) HUNTING.--The term ``hunting means the lawful--
(A) pursuit, trapping, shooting, capture, collection, or killing of wildlife; or
(B) attempt to pursue, trap, shoot, capture, collect, or kill wildlife.
SEC. 4. RECREATIONAL HUNTING.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights, Federal public land shall be open to access and use for recreational hunting except as limited by--
(1) the agency head with jurisdiction over the Federal public land--
(A) for reasons of national security;
(B) for reasons of public safety; or
(C) for any other reasons for closure authorized by applicable Federal law; and
(2) any law (including regulations) of the State in which the Federal public land is located that is applicable to recreational hunting.
(b) Management.--Consistent with subsection (a), to the extent authorized under State law (including regulations), and in accordance with applicable Federal law (including regulations), each agency head shall manage Federal public land under the jurisdiction of the agency head in a manner that supports, promotes, and enhances recreational hunting opportunities.
(c) No Net Loss.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Federal public land management decisions and actions should, to the maximum extent practicable, result in no net loss of land area available for hunting opportunities on Federal public land.
(2) ANNUAL REPORT.--Not later than October 1 of each year, each agency head with authority to manage Federal public land on which recreational hunting occurs shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives a report that describes--
(A)(i) any Federal public land administered by the agency head that was closed to recreational hunting at any time during the preceding year; and
(ii) the reason for the closure; and
(B) areas administered by the agency head that were opened to recreational hunting to compensate for the closure of the areas described in subparagraph (A)(i).
(3) CLOSURES OF 5,000 OR MORE ACRES.--The withdrawal, change of classification, or change of management status that effectively closes 5,000 or more acres of Federal
[Page: S1242] GPO's PDF public land to access or use for recreational hunting shall take effect only if, before the date of withdrawal or change, the agency head that has jurisdiction over the Federal public land submits to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives written notice of the withdrawal or change.
(d) Areas Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act compels the opening to recreational hunting of national parks or national monuments under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior.
(e) No Priority.--Nothing in this Act requires a Federal agency to give preference to hunting over other uses of Federal public land or over land or water management priorities established by Federal law.
(f) Authority of the States.--
(1) SAVINGS.--Nothing in this Act affects the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of a State to manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife under State law (including regulations) on land or water in the State, including Federal public land.
(2) FEDERAL LICENSES.--Nothing in this Act authorizes an agency head to require a license or permit to hunt, fish, or trap on land or water in a State, including on Federal public land in the State.
(3) STATE RIGHT OF ACTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Any State aggrieved by the failure of an agency head or employee to comply with this Act may bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the district in which the failure occurs for a permanent injunction.
(B) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.--If the district court determines, based on the facts, that a preliminary injunction is appropriate, the district court may grant a preliminary injunction.
(C) COURT COSTS.--If the district court issues an injunction under this paragraph or otherwise finds in favor of the State, the district court shall award to the State any reasonable costs of bringing the civil action (including an attorney's fee).
S. 409
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. DORGAN):
S. 409. A bill to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal interests in the State of North Dakota; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act, which authorizes $60 million through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist communities in North Dakota with water supply and treatment projects.
Imagine if you went to turn on your kitchen faucet one day and no water came out. This scenario became true for thousands in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just days before Thanksgiving in 2003. The loss of drinking water forced the closure of schools, the hospital and tribal offices for days. About 170 miles upstream, the community of Parshall faces similar water supply challenges as the water level on Lake Sakakawea continues to drop, leaving its intake high and dry. These and other communities in the State have faced significant expenditures in extending their intakes to ensure a continued supply of water. In addition, the city of Mandan faces the prospect of constructing a new horizontal well intake because changes in sediment load and flow as a result of the backwater effects of the Oahe Reservoir have caused significant siltation problems that restrict flow into the intake. These examples barely scratch the surface of the problems faced by many North Dakota communities in maintaining a safe, reliable water supply.
Since 1999, the Corps of Engineers has been authorized to design and construct water-related infrastructure projects in several different States including Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana. The State of North Dakota confronts water infrastructure challenges that are just as difficult as those in these other States. In fact, many of these challenges are caused directly by the Corps of Engineers's operations of the Missouri River dams. As a result, it is only appropriate that the Corps be part of the solution to North Dakota's water needs.
The Water Infrastructure Revitalization Act would provide important supplemental funding to assist North Dakota communities with water-related infrastructure repairs. Under the act, communities could use the funding for wastewater treatment, water supply facilities, environmental restoration and surface water resource protection. Projects would be cost shared, with 75 percent Federal funding and 25 percent non-Federal in most instances. However, the bill reduces the financial burden on local communities if necessary to ensure that water rates do not exceed the national affordability criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill is not intended to compete with or take away funds for the construction of rural water projects under the Dakota Water Resources Act. Instead, it is meant to provide important supplemental funding for communities that are not able to receive funding from the Dakota Water Resources Act. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an important issue in North Dakota.
S. 410
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. DORGAN):
S. 410. A bill to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to direct the Secretary of the Army to provide assistance to design and construct a project to provide a continued safe and reliable municipal water supply system for Devils Lake, North Dakota; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a new municipal water supply system for the city of Devils Lake, ND. This project is very important to the reliability of the water supply for the residents of Devils Lake and is needed to mitigate long-term consequences from the rising flood waters of Devils Lake.
As many of my colleagues know, the Devils Lake region has been plagued by a flooding disaster since 1993. During that time, Devils Lake, a closed basin lake, has risen more than 25 feet, consuming land, destroying homes, and impacting vital infrastructure. As a result of this disaster, the city of Devils Lake faces a significant risk of losing its water supply. Currently, 6 miles or approximately one-third of the city's 40-year-old water transmission line is covered by the rising waters of Devils Lake. The submerged section of the water line includes numerous gate valves, air relief valves, and blow-off discharges.
All of the water for the city's residents and businesses must flow through this single transmission line. It is also the only link between the water source and the city's water distribution system. Since the transmission line is operated under relatively low pressures and is under considerable depths of water, a minor leak could cause significant problems. If a failure in the line were to occur, it would be almost impossible to identify the leak and make necessary repairs, and the city would be left without a water supply.
The city is in the process of accessing a new water source due both to the threat of a transmission line failure and the fact that its current water source exceeds the new arsenic standard. The city has worked closely with the North Dakota State Water Commission in identifying a new water source that will not be affected by the rising flood waters and will provide the city with adequate water to meet its current and future needs.
The bill will authorize the Corps to construct a new water supply system for the city. Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to address the unintended consequences of this flood and mitigate its long-term consequences. This bill will help the Federal Government live up to its responsibility and ensure that the residents of Devils Lake have a safe and reliable water supply. It is my hope that this authorization will be included as part of the Water Resources Development Act.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to address an important issue for the city of Devils Lake.
S. 411
By Mr. SMITH:
S. 411. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credit rate parity for all renewable resources under the electricity production credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will bring parity to all renewable energy facilities that qualify for the production tax credit under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code.
I have been a long-time supporter of the production tax credit. There are significant wind facilities in Oregon, where we have over 335 megawatts of installed wind capacity. These facilities provide clean energy as well as important revenues to farmers and rural counties in Eastern Oregon.
Currently, however, some eligible renewable facilities get only half the per-kilowatt credit that other types of facilities receive. My goal here is to level the playing field for all eligible renewables without reducing the credit any facility currently receives.
Therefore, my bill provides that all eligible facilities would receive the higher credit amount for each kilowatt of electricity produced.
I believe that this bill will help to provide the necessary incentives to diversify our renewable energy resources. It will also eliminate the competitive disadvantage that certain types of renewables currently face. Utilities have little incentive to select renewables that qualify for the lower credit rate when buying green power. The eligible facilities that receive the lower rate include open-loop biomass, incremental hydropower, and small irrigation systems, all of which are important energy sources that could help meet the growing demand for electricity in my State of Oregon and in many other parts of the country.
I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing the credit rate for eligible renewables, and fostering the development and deployment of these important facilities.
S. 412
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. OBAMA):
S. 412. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, IL, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.
For over 20 years, Lane Evans has been my closest friend in the Illinois congressional delegation. We came to the House of Representatives together and he proved to be an indomitable force. Time and again, Lane Evans showed extraordinary political courage fighting for the values that brought him to public service. But his greatest show of courage has been over the last 10 years as he battled Parkinson's disease and those who tried to exploit his physical weakness. His dignity and perseverance in the face of this relentless and cruel disease is an inspiration to everyone who knows Lane Evans.
I am pleased to offer this legislation to permanently and publicly recognize Lane Evans and his service to his congressional district, our State of Illinois, and the entire United States by naming the Rock Island Post Office in his honor. It would be a most appropriate way for us to express our appreciation to Congressman Evans and to commemorate his public life and work.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 412
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LANE EVANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building.
S. 414
By Ms. MIKULSKI:
S. 414. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act to require that food that contains product from a cloned animal be labeled accordingly, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal.
I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from cloned animals. No one needs cloned milk and meat. Most Americans actively oppose it.
But the Food and Drug Administration has decided that food from cloned animals is safe to eat. And, since they have decided this is ``safe, they will not require that it be labeled as coming from a cloned animal.
The American people don't want this. Gallup Polls report over 65 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk.
The National Academies of Science reported that so far, studies show no problems with food from cloned animals but they also admit that this is brand new science. What about the possibility of unintended consequences a few years from now? They cautioned the Federal Government to monitor for potential health effects and urged diligent post-market surveillance.
So even if we agreed the science appears safe, we need to follow it closely. But, once the FDA determines this is safe they said they will allow the food to enter the market unidentified, unlabeled, unbeknownst to all of us and completely indistinguishable from all other food. We won't be able to tell which foods were made the good old fashioned way and which came from a cloned animal
Must we be compelled to eat anything a scientist can produce in the laboratory? Just because they can make it, should Americans be required to eat it? Of course not. The public deserves to know if their food comes from a cloned animal.
To help the American public make an informed decision on this, today I will introduce a bill to require all food that comes from a cloned animal to be labeled. This legislation will require the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that comes from a cloned animal or their offspring. We need to know and we must be able to decide for ourselves. And I mean all food--not just the packages we buy in the supermarket but the meals we choose from a menu.
The FDA has a responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. Though many aspects of food safety are beyond their control--this is not. We do not know enough about the long term effects of introducing cloned animals, or their offspring, into our food supply to guarantee this is safe. Is this decision to allow cloned animals into our food supply influenced by factors other than keeping the public safe? Are they allowing an eager industry to force a questionably scientific process on an unknowing public?
We simply don't have the same trust in the FDA as we once had. Recently the Wall Street Journal found that over half of Americans feel the FDA does not do a good job keeping our drug supply safe. We want to trust them with the safety of our food supply but what if they are wrong?
What if the FDA has made a mistake and finds out a few years from now that there was a problem with this. If we do not keep track of it from the very beginning--by clear and dependable labeling--we could contaminate our entire food supply. If the food is not properly labeled we can't remove it from the shelves like we did with problematic drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex. We must be proactive. We must label these foods.
I reject the notion that the FDA or anyone else should force Americans to accept and consume any product that can be manufactured in a lab--no matter how offensive the product is. We need to insist that the FDA treat the public fairly. If cloned food is safe, let it onto the market, but give consumers the information they need to avoid these products. We need to let Americans speak with their dollars and choose the food they have confidence is safe.
JANUARY 25, 2007
SENATE RESOLUTION 43--HONORING THE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATION OF THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 43
Whereas the Academy of Music opened in 1857 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and quickly became the most prestigious opera house in the United States;
Whereas the Academy of Music is the oldest grand opera house in the United States that is still used for its original purpose;
Whereas, in 1963, the Academy of Music was designated a National Historic Landmark;
Whereas, over the years, the Academy of Music served not only as a venue for the performing arts community, but has also hosted many graduation ceremonies, along with several Presidential conventions and other important public events;
Whereas the Academy of Music served as the Philadelphia Orchestra's main concert hall for more than a century, and the Orchestra purchased the Academy in 1957 and performs each year for the Academy's anniversary;
Whereas the Academy of Music has had a host of legendary artists grace its stage, from the disciplines of classical to popular music, dance, and drama, including Maria Callas, Joan Sutherland, Marian Anderson, Frank Sinatra, George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, Anna Pavlova, Ruth St. Denis, Ted Shawn, and Margot Fonteyn;
Whereas the Academy of Music has also hosted several sporting events, was turned into an indoor skating rink in 1866, had a wooden floor installed over the parquet level in 1889 to create space for an indoor football game between the University of Pennsylvania and the Riverton Club of Princeton, and had a wooden floor installed again in 1892 for the University of Pennsylvania for a track meet; and
Whereas the Academy of Music has also been a part of other historical and cultural events, such as a demonstration of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell in 1877, the first ever concert in stereophonic sound in 1933 performed by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra, the filming of ``One Hundred Gentlemen and a Girl in 1937, and the recording of the soundtrack of the Disney classic ``Fantasia by the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1939: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) congratulates the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on its 150th anniversary;
(2) honors the important contributions of the Academy of Music to the Nation; and
(3) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Academy of Music.
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 209 - Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
SA 210 - Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, supra.
SA 211 - Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Baucus) to the bill H.R. 2, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 209. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 2, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; as follows:
On page 4, line 8, strike ``2011 and insert ``2013.
SA 210. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 2, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; as follows:
On page 4, strike lines 4 through 8 and insert the following:
SEC. 201. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
Section 179 (relating to election to expense certain depreciable business assets) is amended by striking ``and before 2010 each place it appears.
On page 4, strike lines 18 through 24 and insert the following:
(1) PERMANENT EXTENSION OF LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Section 168(e)(3)(E)(iv) is amended by striking ``placed in service before January 1, 2008.
(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by this paragraph shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2007.
On page 4, after line 24 add insert the following:
(2) PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESTAURANT IMPROVEMENTS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Section 168(e)(3)(E)(v) is amended by striking ``placed in service before January 1, 2008.
(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by this paragraph shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2007.
On page 6, strike lines 4 through 6 and insert the following:
``(ix) any qualified retail improvement property..
On page 12, strike lines 19 through 21 and insert the following:
(a) Permanent Extension of Combined Work Opportunity Credit and Welfare-to-Work Credit.--Section 51(c) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
SA 211. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 100 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. BAUCUS) to the bill H.R. 2, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; as follows:
At the end of section 102 of the amendment, add the following:
(c) Applicability to American Samoa.--Notwithstanding sections 5, 6(a)(3), 8, 10, and 13(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 205, 206(a)(3), 208, 210, 213(e)), subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall apply to American Samoa in the same manner as such subsections apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, January 26, 2007, at 9 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on recent Chinese anti-satellite testing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Erin Bergman of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
DISCHARGE AND REFERRAL
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 172 and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
NATIONAL STALKING AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 14, S. Res. 24.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 24) designating January 2007 as National Stalking Awareness Month.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the RECORD, without further intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 24) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 24
Whereas an estimated 1,006,970 women and 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United States and, in the majority of such cases, the person is stalked by someone who is not a stranger;
Whereas 81 percent of women who are stalked by an intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner, and 76 percent of women who are killed by an intimate partner were also stalked by that intimate partner;
Whereas 26 percent of stalking victims lose time from work as a result of their victimization, and 7 percent never return to work;
Whereas stalking victims are forced to take drastic measures to protect themselves, such as relocating, changing their addresses, changing their identities, changing jobs, and obtaining protection orders;
Whereas stalking is a crime that cuts across race, culture, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability, and economic status;
Whereas stalking is a crime under Federal law and under the laws of all 50 States and the District of Columbia;
Whereas rapid advancements in technology have made cyber-surveillance the new frontier in stalking;
Whereas there are national organizations, local victim service organizations, prosecutors' offices, and police departments that stand ready to assist stalking victims and who are working diligently to craft competent, thorough, and innovative responses to stalking; and
Whereas there is a need to enhance the criminal justice system's response to stalking, including through aggressive investigation and prosecution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Senate designates January 2007 as ``National Stalking Awareness Month;
(2) it is the sense of the Senate that--
(A) National Stalking Awareness Month provides an opportunity to educate the people of the United States about stalking;
(B) the people of the United States should applaud the efforts of the many victim service providers, such as police, prosecutors, national and community organizations, and private sector supporters, for their efforts in promoting awareness about stalking; and
(C) policymakers, criminal justice officials, victim service and human service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others should recognize the need to increase awareness of stalking and availability of services for stalking victims; and
(3) the Senate urges national and community organizations, businesses, and the media to promote, through observation of National Stalking Awareness Month, awareness of the crime of stalking.
RECOGNIZING THE UNCOMMON VALOR OF WESLEY AUTREY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 13, S. Res. 21.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 21) recognizing the uncommon valor of Wesley Autrey of New York, New York.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the RECORD, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 21) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 21
Whereas Wesley Autrey is a citizen of New York, New York;
Whereas Wesley Autrey is a veteran of the United States Navy;
Whereas Wesley Autrey has been a member in good standing of the Construction and General Building Laborers' Local 79 since 1996;
Whereas Wesley Autrey witnessed a fellow subway passenger suffer from a seizure and fall onto the train tracks;
Whereas Wesley Autrey was compelled by his belief that he should ``do the right thing and serve as an example to his 2 young daughters;
Whereas Wesley Autrey demonstrated uncommon valor and tremendous bravery in diving onto the train tracks to save the life of his fellow subway passenger only moments before an incoming train passed over them;
Whereas the beneficiary of Wesley Autrey's courageous actions is now recovering at St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York;
Whereas Wesley Autrey has conducted himself with the utmost humility in the midst of his newfound fame; and
Whereas Wesley Autrey stands out as an example of selflessness to members of his community, his State, and the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes that Wesley Autrey acted heroically by putting his own life at risk to save that of his fellow citizen; and
(2) expresses its deep appreciation for Wesley Autrey's example and the values that his actions represent.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY LESSONS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 15, S. Res. 29.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 29) expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and the many lessons still to be learned from Dr. King's example of nonviolence, courage, compassion, dignity, and public service.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the RECORD, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 29) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 29
Whereas Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to securing the Nation's fundamental principles of liberty and justice for all citizens;
Whereas Dr. King was the leading civil rights advocate of his time, spearheading the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s, and earned worldwide recognition as an eloquent and articulate spokesperson for equality;
Whereas in the face of hatred and violence, Dr. King preached a doctrine of nonviolence and civil disobedience to combat segregation, discrimination, and racial injustice, and believed that each person has the moral capacity to care for other people;
Whereas Dr. King awakened the conscience and consciousness of the Nation and used his message of hope to bring people together to build the Beloved Community--a community of justice, at peace with itself;
Whereas Dr. King was born on January 15, 1929, and attended segregated public schools in Georgia;
Whereas Dr. King began attending Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia at the age of 15, and received a B.A. degree in 1948 from Morehouse College, following in the footsteps of both his father and grandfather;
Whereas Dr. King received his B.D. in 1951 from Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. in theology in 1955 from Boston University;
Whereas in Boston Dr. King met Coretta Scott, his life partner and fellow civil rights activist, and they married on June 18, 1953, and had 2 sons and 2 daughters;
Whereas Dr. King was ordained in the Christian ministry in February 1948 at the age of 19 at Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta, Georgia, and became Assistant Pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church;
Whereas, in 1954, Dr. King accepted the call of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and was pastor there until November 1959, when he resigned to move back to Atlanta to lead the Southern Christian Leadership Conference;
Whereas from 1960 until his death in 1968, Dr. King was again a pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, along with his father;
Whereas between 1957 and 1968, Dr. King traveled over 6,000,000 miles, spoke over 2,500 times, and wrote 5 books and numerous articles, supporting efforts around the Nation to end injustice and bring about social change and desegregation;
Whereas Dr. King led the Montgomery bus boycott for 381 days to protest the arrest of Mrs. Rosa Parks and the segregation of the bus system of Montgomery, Alabama, in the first great nonviolent civil rights demonstration of contemporary times in the United States;
Whereas during the boycott, Dr. King was arrested and his home was bombed, yet he responded with nonviolence and courage in the face of hatred;
Whereas, on November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the laws requiring segregation in Montgomery's bus system to be unconstitutional, leading to the end of the bus boycott on December 21, 1956;
Whereas Dr. King led the March on Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, the largest rally of the civil rights movement;
Whereas during that march, Dr. King delivered his famous ``I Have A Dream speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and before a crowd of over 200,000 people;
Whereas Dr. King's ``I Have A Dream speech is one of the classic orations in United States history;
Whereas Dr. King was a champion of nonviolence, fervently advocating nonviolent resistance as the strategy to end segregation and racial discrimination in the United States;
Whereas Dr. King was awarded the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition for his efforts, and, at the age of 35, was the youngest man to receive the Nobel Peace Prize;
Whereas through his work and reliance on nonviolent protest, Dr. King was instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
Whereas the work of Dr. King created a basis of understanding and respect and helped communities, and the Nation as a whole, to act cooperatively and courageously to achieve tolerance, justice, and equality between people;
Whereas, on the evening of April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated while standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead sanitation workers in protest against low wages and intolerable working conditions;
Whereas in 1968 Representative John Conyers first introduced legislation to establish a national holiday honoring Dr. King;
Whereas Coretta Scott King led a massive campaign to establish Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday;
Whereas in 1983 Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation establishing Martin Luther King, Jr. Day;
Whereas in 2007 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is celebrated in more than 100 countries;
Whereas in remembering Dr. King we also honor his wife and indispensable partner, Coretta Scott King, a woman of quiet courage and great dignity who marched alongside her husband and became an international advocate for peace and human rights;
Whereas Mrs. King, who had been actively engaged in the civil rights movement as a politically and socially conscious young woman, continued after her husband's death to lead the Nation toward greater justice and equality for all, traveling the world advocating for racial and economic justice, peace and nonviolence, women's and children's rights, gay rights, religious freedom, full employment, health care, and education until her death on January 30, 2006;
Whereas the values of faith, compassion, courage, truth, justice, and nonviolence that guided Dr. and Mrs. King's dream for the United States will be celebrated and preserved by the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial on the National Mall near the Jefferson Memorial and in the new National Museum of African American History and Culture that will be located near the Lincoln Memorial;
Whereas Dr. King's actions and leadership made the United States a better place and the people of the United States a better people;
Whereas the people of the United States should commemorate the legacy of Dr. King, so ``that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: `We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal' ; and
Whereas Dr. King's voice is silenced today, but on the national holiday honoring Dr. King and throughout the year, the people of the United States should remember his message, recommit to his goal of a free and just nation, and consider each person's responsibility to other people: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) observes and celebrates the national holiday honoring Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.;
(2) honors Dr. King's example of nonviolence, courage, compassion, dignity, and public service;
(3) pledges to advance the legacy of the Dr. King; and
(4) encourages the people of the United States to celebrate--
(A) the national holiday honoring Dr. King; and
(B) the life and legacy of Dr. King.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 2 through 5 and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
[[1]]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative session.
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2007
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. January 29; that on Monday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, except that Senator Dorgan be recognized for up to 45 minutes and Senator Specter be recognized for up to 30 minutes; that at 3:30 p.m., the Senate resume H.R. 2 for debate only until 5 p.m.; at 4 p.m., Senator Sessions be recognized for up to 1 hour; that Members have until 3 p.m. today to file any first-degree amendments. Provided further that the live quorum under rule XXII with respect to cloture motions be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senators Burr and Harkin, the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
MINIMUM WAGE AMENDMENT
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, on this brisk day in Washington, weatherwise, we have had a refreshing debate about minimum wage. I have listened to the majority leader say that those who have minimum wage amendments and would like to have votes are, in fact, against raising the minimum wage. I introduced my amendment yesterday. I highlighted the wonderful work of Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, the managers of the bill, the fact that we were long overdue for a minimum wage increase, and that, as a Member of the Senate, I thought it was important we explore, as we do this, if we can make some changes that allow us to address other areas.
Now, I happen to be the Senator who offered the amendment--and I thank my colleagues Senator Coburn and Senator DeMint who are cosponsors--who suggested this--that with the $2.10 increase we make in minimum wage, we allow an employer to determine if they want to provide that increase in wages or in health care benefits.
We have had a debate in this country for years, over the 13 years I have been here, about the uninsured population and what we need to do. Here is an opportunity to do something. Here is a real opportunity to give employers the incentive to provide to the most at-risk minimum wage workers a health care benefit that can be covered under the umbrella of health coverage that we, as Members of the Senate and those of us who work for the Federal Government, actually have that protects us.
All Americans should have access to quality and affordable health care. Under our current system, many get health care from their employer. Let's increase the number of Americans under that umbrella of coverage and take the opportunity, as we increase the minimum wage rate, to allow employers to be the ones to do it.
The majority leader has filed a cloture motion on S. 2. Let me explain exactly what that means. We are going to cut off the ability to offer amendments on anything non-germane. Anyone listening to the description of my amendment would have to say, clearly, that is germane. You will use the $2.10 increase in the minimum wage to allow employers to offer health care with that $2.10. Now, this is not a shot at the Parliamentarian of the Senate, but this amendment is not germane. In filing cloture without an agreement, we won't be allowed in the Senate to have a vote on my amendment. I can come here and sell the merits of my amendment to those across the country who listen to this and they will say--that makes a tremendous amount of sense. We want to extend health care to the uninsured. An excellent way to do that is to use the power of the employer. As an employer negotiated for the rest of his employees who may not be at the lower end of his pay scale, he can use the minimum wage workers in the group rate and access health insurance cheaper than they could as individuals.
But no, filing cloture means without an agreement the Senate is never going to have a vote on this. We will be denied the vote because this is non-germane.
I am not sure where this fits in that open process I heard described. As a matter of fact, we have actually filed cloture for a bill we have not even called up, a resolution on Iraq. I guess that means we will limit our debate on the war, too. Gee, that is a strange one to limit debate on.
Let me take the time I have today to talk about my amendment. Mr. President, $2.10; what is that on an annual basis for an individual at the lowest end of the income scale in America? It is $4,368. Some people will be opposed to the amendment even though they will not get an opportunity to vote on it because they will say that is not enough money. Let me show what it can buy.
Mr. President, $4,300 a year can buy health insurance, 100 percent for an individual. It can buy almost 50 percent of family coverage. This is the average as followed by the Kaiser Family Foundation of fee-for-service insurance: $3,782. I might say that regionally, where you live in the United States dictates the cost of health insurance, but this is an average for the United States, fee-for-service, traditional health care coverage, $3,782; a preferred provider plan, $4,150; a POS plan, $3,914; and a health maintenance organization, $3,767.
The argument that you cannot provide health care with the $4,368 increase we are giving to a minimum wage worker clearly has been demonstrated by the Kaiser Foundation to be wrong. You cannot only provide it as an employer, you can pay 100 percent of it. A minimum wage worker would not have to put a dime out of their pocket to have health care coverage that is equal to what a Member of the Senate has. But when you file cloture, when you limit debate, when you deny a vote, you have now denied every minimum wage worker in the country of having an opportunity for their employer to work on behalf of their group to extend the health care benefit to minimum wage workers: a 100-percent benefit.
The President and myself--I think we pay 25 percent of our insurance premium for health care, and that percentage certainly changes, depending on who you work for. But an employer assumes some percentage. Some employers pay 100 percent, but it is rare today. Here is an opportunity to give employers an incentive to provide 100 percent of the premium cost and still have money left over to provide to their employees.
I am sure there are people listening to this debate who are saying this is crazy. If we have 47 million uninsured in this country, how many of those might fall into this category? The reality is, it is almost 15 million Americans whose income is $25,000 or less.
The average minimum wage worker today makes a little over $10,000. The actual national poverty level is a little over $9,000. They are very close to it for a full 40 hours worth of work.
When we look at 47 million Americans, I am beginning to think we like that number more for the purposes of debate than as a target or a goal to solve.
I said at the beginning, I believe all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. My opposition only wants that access if the Government provides it instead of the private sector. That was the debate in Part D Medicare when we created the first ever drug benefit for seniors in this country. And there were two sides, those who said only the Federal Government can provide this and those who believed that the private sector could, in fact, negotiate prices--not just for the price of the drugs but through that, the premiums--where seniors could be afforded choices.
Today, the majority of Medicare-eligible individuals are signed up with the Part D prescription drug plan. Much to my amazement, for those who are incredibly pleased with their plan, the percentage is close to 100 percent because of their choices and those who want to assume more financial risk out of their pocket and pay a smaller premium can do it. Those who do not want to pay out of their pocket but want to pay a higher premium can do that. For every milestone we have seen in Part D, drug prices have reduced because we have injected competition, premium prices have reduced because we are now providing drugs to seniors who are actually taking them.
What does that do to our overall health care system? It means the more they are taking their medications, the less likely they are to visit the hospitals. Gee, I wonder if that is applicable to what we are talking about here? Why are health care costs going so high? Yes, we have a lot of new technology. That technology allows us to do things in a noninvasive way. Instead of cracking a chest open and doing a bypass on somebody's heart because maybe they ate the wrong things for 60 years, now we can go in through their leg, we can go up through their vein structure, we can put in a stent and we can open and eliminate the risk of a heart attack. The quality of life is better for them because the recovery is shorter. In some cases it can be done as an outpatient procedure. That $70,000 average cost of a heart bypass is reduced significantly and, consequently, with that, the overall health care system sees savings.
Imagine if we had not been doing that what the rise in health care costs would be. Part of health care inflation today--and I suggest it is a large part--is the cost shift that goes on. What is cost shift? The Presiding Officer and I have health insurance.
When we go in and access health care, the hospital, the doctor, the lab, and the pharmacist know they are going to get paid because we give them an insurance card. There is no question in their mind. They know exactly what their reimbursement is going to be. If a Medicare beneficiary at any point accesses health care, that doctor, that hospital, that lab knows exactly what the reimbursement is they are going to get from Medicare for the procedure they offer.
But when somebody goes into an emergency room who is uninsured and they do not pay: What happens to the cost of the procedure they got? It is real simple. It gets shifted to us. It gets shifted to everybody who has insurance. And to recover that, everybody's premium in the country goes up.
So as I stand here and talk about a very specific group, minimum wage workers in America, what everybody has to understand is what we do on this issue affects everybody's health care in America. It affects everybody's premium amount in America. It affects 25 percent of all Federal employees costs. If you want to drive some costs down in the Federal Government, it is easy: Let's do this because we will eliminate a significant part of the cost shifting that is going on in our health care system in this country.
Studies have shown in order to get individuals to purchase their own health insurance, tax incentives to individuals need to cover half or more of their health insurance premium. We are covering 100 percent of it. Many tax-based health care proposals to help the uninsured are criticized because they do not meet the threshold of covering half or more of an individual's health insurance premium. This is the first time I have ever been criticized because we offered 100 percent of the premium.
Now, why might other people object to this? Well, quite honestly, they might say the employees should get wages, not health care. Well, let me restate what I said at the beginning, so it is clear.
All Americans should have health coverage. Mr. President, 14.6 million Americans make less than $25,000 a year and are uninsured. So if we are wondering in that pot of 47 million what makes up some of them, here is 14.6 million of them right here. They make less than $25,000 a year, and we know for a fact they are uninsured.
Mr. President, $2.10 a day can buy basic health insurance for a minimum wage worker. On this chart is a breakdown of millions of uninsured by household income. You notice that close to the largest group is shown right here: $25,000 and below.
This amendment is like a laser beam on exactly where we can make a difference. You see, we are at a real crossroads in America. We have gotten used to the best health care delivery the world has ever seen. As a matter of fact, if we tried to import from another country--and I will not name one because I do not want to offend them--their health care system into our country, the American people would rebel. They would not wait. They would not accept half a loaf when they thought they deserved a whole loaf. That is how our system is.
So if we want to get a handle on this incredible cost of health care, we have to do two things. We have to provide coverage and we have to promote prevention and wellness.
You see, if we can teach people how to control disease, then the number of times they access health care is going to be less. That is pretty much common sense. The problem is if we cannot create a relationship between an individual and a health care professional, how in the world are we ever going to complete the educational process of what disease management is? How can we teach a diabetic that it is just as important to get exercise and to have a diet as it is to take their medication and check their blood sugar?
As a matter of fact, in Asheville, NC, we are in the 10th year of a project called the Asheville Project, where it has focused specifically on diabetes. This idea was clearly out of the box because the community decided, with a grant, they were going to reimburse pharmacists to counsel diabetes patients.
Think about that: A diabetes patient goes in. They are getting their medications filled. Now in Asheville, NC, and 10 other locations in the United States, that diabetes patient will sit down with the pharmacist, and the pharmacist will look through their drug regimen and make sure it is correct. They will make sure there is no interaction of different medications that they are currently taking. They will talk to them about exercise. They will give them suggestions if they are not getting exercise. They will check their progress if they are. They will talk to them about diet. They will actually weigh them. Maybe that is what we are scared of: If we do this, they will start weighing all of us.
The reality is in Asheville, NC, and these 10 other cities across the country, there is now data. It is not me. It is the data that proves they save $2,000 a year per diabetic because we now provide for every diabetic this intense relationship with a health care professional.
Now, what you have to understand is that in Asheville's case, and these other areas around the country, this is not the traditional entry point where we would choose to educate. This is quite creative. As a matter of fact, we have talked about it, and it has been rejected in this institution before, that we actually pay pharmacists to do part of the health care education. I hope it is something we will reexamine because I think there is tremendous merit to it. It has proven to be successful.
But what does it prove? It proves that if prevention and wellness are promoted, there are savings that are derived across the system, and those savings will drive down premium costs for every American.
Well, how do you get there? You get there by making sure every American is covered. Mr. President, 14.6 million--that is a real chunk of people whom we have an opportunity to affect whether they actually have health care coverage, whether they will actually have the education they need with a health care professional on disease management. It could be diabetes; it could be HIV/AIDS. There are a number of things that fall into the category.
But the reality is, if we miss this opportunity, we will continue to have 14 million people who will access health care in the emergency room on an as-needed basis, and the likelihood is, there will be an in-hospital patient with an average stay of over 3 days. And at the end of that stay, they probably will not have the money to pay for it, and, in fact, that will get cost shifted to everybody's insurance across the country. They do not want to do that; they just do not have the money to pay for it.
Well, here is an opportunity for them not to be put in a difficult situation. Here is an opportunity for an individual to have 100 percent of their insurance--let me go back to that. For an individual, $4,386, under a traditional PPO, POS, or HMO, pays 100 percent of their premium costs--better than we get as Senators--and for a family, $9,900, $11,000, $10,000--$10,000 is the average across the country, based upon the type of plan you choose. We could pay 50 percent of a family's health care premium if we allowed employers to use the $2.10 and to apply it to health care benefits versus wages.
One in five adults age 18 to 64 were uninsured in 2004--one in five adults. More than 54 percent of the uninsured are in families making 200 percent or less of the Federal poverty guideline. Again, that is $9,800 a year. Americans living in households with annual incomes below $25,000 have a higher incidence of no insurance. Mr. President, 24 percent were uninsured in 2004, compared to 15.7 percent of the total population. You see, this is not just the norm percentage who do not have insurance; this is almost double the national norm.
Now, why this bill? Why the way we chose to do it? Well, employers are the centerpiece of health care delivery in the United States today. They may not be in the future. I am anxious to have that debate. Personally, I believe a health policy should be like a 401(k) plan. You should be able to take that health policy with you regardless of where you go, that when you change employers, you should not have to lose insurance coverage with a given company and the structure of your plan. You should have the option to take that with you. So I am sure at some point this year we will have that debate.
Mr. President, 174 million workers and their dependents received health coverage through the workplace in 2004. So if you ask yourself, why am I offering this on the minimum wage bill? it is because 174 million Americans receive their health care coverage via their employer. We have this excellent opportunity right now, as we talk about increasing minimum wage, where we can provide the incentive.
I might add, I said the "option, that an employer have the option. I am not mandating that an employer has to offer health care. There is a lot of work that goes into a company providing health care for their employees. They have to meet with plans. They have to negotiate rates. They have to keep records. There are going to be some employers who do not provide health care as a benefit, and they may not provide it for their employees afterwards. But you also have a segment of America that is minimum wage workers where companies would like to find a way for those folks to stay with them versus to leave for a nickel-an-hour or a dime-an-hour increase by somebody else.
I can tell you, if you offer them 100 percent of their health care, then somebody is going to have to bid very high if, in fact, they are not providing health care, too.
Workers, and especially low-income workers, feel more comfortable with their employers negotiating health care benefits than going into the individual market and purchasing it themselves. Why? It is real simple. It is because an employer negotiates volume. When I walk in, they see one individual, and they know I must be uninsured, if I am in there to buy health care, and the likelihood is they are never going to pull that sheet out of the middle drawer that says ``discounts. I will never receive a discount as an individual.
And oddly enough, in this country, I have to say--and this is wrong--the lower your income, the more the actuaries look at you and determine you are going to cost more. It is 100-percent wrong. And part of it is the structure of our model in this country: that we seldom promote wellness and prevention. I do not care where your income level is, if you provide those individuals with the tools they need, they are as healthy as the person next to them. What these folks do not have, because they do not have coverage, is they have no relationship with a health care professional. And that health care professional could be a primary care doctor; it could be a nurse; it could be a hospital; it could be a community health center; it could be a rural health clinic. And in the case of Asheville, NC, it could be a pharmacist in a very targeted program.
More than 8 out of 10 of the uninsured are in working families. I am not talking about isolated individuals. I am picking these folks and not suggesting that we are doing something that just affects individuals. These are families. That is why when I talk about the family piece, think about a family that has never had health insurance for their children. Think about when they go in and their employer says: You know, we have this new requirement that we have to raise the minimum wage $2.10. But I will offer you 50 percent of your health care premium for your entire family, your wife and your children. It is going to be in place until your children get out of college. Maybe that will give them an incentive to encourage those kids to graduate from high school and to consider higher education as part of their future.
Six out of ten uninsured individuals have at least one family member working full time year-round. This is a huge population we are talking about affecting with this amendment. In 2002, 42 percent of wage and salary workers, age 18 to 64, were not offered health coverage through their employers. Here is a tremendous opportunity, as we do something that I have said I will support, and I doubt it will receive very many votes in opposition--here is an opportunity for the Congress to significantly affect the uninsured. But I remind everybody, we are not going to have an opportunity to vote on this amendment. It is so timely that I would come to the floor, I would wait my turn to talk about an amendment that I couldn't talk about the other day because the leadership was in a hurry. So I called up my amendment so it would be pending--pending means that it should get a vote before cloture would be filed--only to find out from the majority leader when he stood, I think he referred to my amendment as "silly.
I don't think it is silly. It may be non-germane, but the health insurance of minimum wage workers is not silly. As a matter of fact, it is crucial to the health care change that we have to accomplish in this country if, in fact, we are going to keep health care affordable for all Americans, not just some Americans.
Let me talk about employers and employees. I believe my amendment is a win-win. I challenge any Member of the Senate to tell me who loses. Think about it. An employer is able to negotiate for minimum wage workers at the group rate which means he might be able to negotiate, because he is putting more people in the pool, an even lower cost for his overall workforce than he had before. He is able to offer his employees health care which his competitor might not. His employees have a tendency, then, to stay with him longer because we all know that there is a cost that is incurred by an employer, an investment to train them, an investment to have them in the business. And the last thing they want to do is see minimum wage workers that work a month or 2 or 6 months and keep moving from employer to employer. And by the way, the one thing they don't have control over as an employer is the days that employees call in because they are sick. Those are days that the employer is planning on getting something done. That minimum wage worker, because they are now sick, picks up the phone and says: I can't be there.
Maybe if we get them covered by insurance, maybe if they actually go for prevention and wellness education, maybe if they learn through that health relationship the things they should do and should not do, maybe they are not going to be picking up the phone and calling in and saying: I will not be there.
The employers lose on those days, but the employees lose on those days, too, because this is a minimum wage worker. They are paid by the hour. They are only paid when they are there. Provide them health care, enable them not to make that phone call, the employer doesn't have a disruption in his business, and the employee doesn't have a subtraction in his paycheck. This is truly a win-win for employees and employers.
Employers will spend less time and less money overall by providing the $2.10 increase in health benefits. Let me restate that. Employers will spend less money overall by providing it in health benefits. Why? Because they buy in bulk. What does that mean? It is more bang for the buck. They are able to get more benefit for a smaller amount of dollars. That means that when they go and negotiate the structure of a plan, they could negotiate something that had an even richer benefit, maybe no out-of-pocket cost, maybe no copayment for drugs because they have another $500 there with which they can negotiate. Employers get the same deduction in calculating taxable income, if they provide compensation in the form of health benefits or compensation in the form of wages and salaries.
We all know because we have gone through part of the debate that when employers and employees are covered by health insurance, that is done with pretax wages.
My point is, the tax implication on the minimum wage worker does not go up. They get the same advantage that we have, that their health benefits are not only deductible for the employer, but they can access some pretax dollars to do it.
To deny a vote on this amendment is to not give minimum wage workers the same thing we have. Sure, there is a discrepancy in the difference that you make and I make and they make, but now we are talking about fairness from the standpoint of benefits. We have an opportunity to change that. And because we are in such a hurry in the Senate and because the majority leader is tired of people offering amendments--I think all of them have merit. I haven't seen any that I thought were for the purposes of delay. As a matter of fact, I would be for moving to wrap up this bill tomorrow if the majority leader would say I could have a vote on this amendment. He is not going to give me a vote. You can use the Senate rules to make sure that votes don't happen. And maybe I could have designed this in a way that it was germane. But sometimes the best things are simple. Sometimes when you lay it out in a way that people across the country, especially minimum wage workers, understand, it is better for them. We could hide it and make it confusing and make it to where employers possibly couldn't provide everything that they could. But we decided to leave it simple.
What might be another objection to this bill? Well, can employers truly implement this process. Let me go to another chart. I think you have heard me say most of this except for the last one: Some coverage is better than no coverage. Will every employer get it right? Probably not. Will every employer get as much bang for the buck as they possibly can? Maybe not. Some coverage is better than no coverage. You have heard the percentages about the population that are at the income levels that minimum wage workers are. If you only believed that this amendment would provide some coverage, then you have to agree with me that is better than no coverage.
Under our current health care system, employees will be better off with health care coverage through their employers because employers get better pricing. If they don't or they can't, then I know what is going to happen. They are going to offer it in wages. But should we deny them the opportunity to try to help us solve part of the health care problem that we have in America, and that is the uninsured that are here?
I said earlier that I thought all Americans had a stake in this amendment because it is their health care premium that is affected by every health care policy we take up. When we add additional mandates for coverage, we drive up premium costs. When the American people exercise, watch what they eat, they help us to moderate health care costs and premium costs. Health insurance, even the most basic health insurance, gives people access to a system of health care, that relationship with a health care professional, that primary care doctor, the prevention and wellness programs, routine testing for chronic diseases that keep them out of a hospital.
I want to relate a story. I won't mention the company. Well, I will mention the company: Dell computers. I think it is important that you understand that they are in one of the most competitive industries in the world. I daresay I don't think anybody is going to wake up tomorrow and say: I think I will get into computer manufacturing because there is so much money to be made. Everybody globally is in computer assembly and manufacturing. Dell does it the best. I don't say that just because they have a plant in North Carolina. I say it because the experts say that.
I might also say, since Lenovo has a plant in North Carolina, they do a pretty good job, too. But Dell recognized one day that if they wanted to be competitive in this highly competitive industry of computers, they had to do something about health care. They were self-insured. They had already taken the first step. They assumed a lot of the risk as a company to drive down the cost of their health care for employees and, consequently, for the company. What did Dell find out?
Dell tried to make available prevention tools for their employees. If they were overweight, they would give them a dietician to work with them. If they had diabetes, they would give them somebody who could counsel them about diabetes. If they smoked, they paid for a cessation program. What happened? Less than 10 percent of the Dell employees who were affected by these things took advantage of the program. Less than 10 percent of them signed up to receive the help.
Any other corporation in America might have said: I will just accept the fact that we are going to have this high health insurance. But Dell realized: We are still making computers. And if we can't fix this, we are not going to be competitive.
What did they do? Dell offered employees up to $250 cash if they would sign up for the program. I will tell my colleagues, the American people respond to money. They do respond to money. All of a sudden, the enrollment in these plans went sky high. Today, some 5 or 6 years later Dell computers can prove that they save about $1,700 for every employee who goes into that program. Those numbers may have changed since the last time I met with them.
My point is this: Everywhere we looked--private sector, public, individual, group--where we have been brave enough to go out and do it differently, where we have been brave enough to force prevention and wellness into the system, it works. It works for the employee and for the employer. It is job security because they are more competitive. And every American receives the benefit of it because there is less cost shift in the system.
Let me bring it back to where we are. All Americans should have health coverage. We have this unique opportunity, as we debate the opportunity for minimum wage workers to receive a $2.10 raise over a period of time, to give the option to every employer to provide that $2.10 increase in health care benefits versus in wages.
And the Kaiser Foundation's health research proves that, for an individual, regardless of whether it is traditional fee-for-service insurance, point-of-service, or health maintenance organization, that $4,368 a year pays 100 percent of the premium cost for that minimum wage worker, which is a higher percentage than a Member of the Senate is paid for by the Federal Government. That means a minimum wage worker is not required, such as I am, to pay 25 percent of their health care cost, but they would get 100 percent. If, in fact, their family is uninsured, which the majority of them are, the Kaiser Family Foundation says the average for family coverage--wife, kids, unlimited--that an employer for a minimum wage worker can provide is almost 50 percent of the premium cost.
This is a tremendous opportunity, from a standpoint of health care policy, that I so hope we are not going to miss the opportunity to do. But if my colleagues on both sides of the aisle allow debate to be shut down without an agreement from the majority leader that he is going to allow a vote--the only reason I can see not to have a vote is because nobody has figured out how to put a second-degree amendment on it. It is too simple. Procedurally, if they can kill it, they would.
In North Carolina, Mr. President, there are 1.3 million uninsured individuals; 17 percent of my State's population is uninsured, compared to the national average of 16 percent. So, listen, I feel bad. I wish to see North Carolina do better. As a matter of fact, we have probably more waivers in health care than any State in the country right now, from Medicaid to the soon-to-be dual eligibles under Medicare because we are trying to lower the costs for everybody by being creative as to how we do it. I will tell you this: In North Carolina, the centerpiece of our success is two words: Prevention and wellness. When we are able to establish a relationship with a health care professional, we now have an opportunity to bring prevention and wellness into every person's health care regimen. I am convinced this is absolutely crucial to the future of health care in this country and to the affordability of health care for the future.
Eight hundred and ninety eight thousand uninsured individuals and families are on their own with one full-time worker in North Carolina. So when I said 1.3 million uninsured, understand that almost 900,000 of them are in families--families who could get 50 percent of their premium paid for by their employer, if we gave the employer the option of providing health care versus being forced only to provide wages.
In North Carolina, we have 204,360 uninsured part-time workers. That means they are not going to work 40 hours. So maybe they are only going to work 20 hours, and instead of getting $4,368, they are going to get a little over $2,000. Well, even those part-time workers--uninsured part-time workers--if they are earning minimum wage under this program, as much as 50 or 60 percent of the premium of their health care could be paid for. So it is not limited to full-time workers.
It is too simple. It is way too simple. Everybody in the country gets it. Why doesn't the Senate get it? How can anybody look at this and say we should not do it? It is easy. The Senate rules allow you to not have a vote. I am not trying to delay; I am trying to make the bill better. I am trying to learn from what we are learning all across the country--that there are smart people outside Washington who are in companies, in States, who are involved in the health care system, and we have a real opportunity to take what they have been telling us and apply it to the most at-risk group of Americans, which are the minimum wage workers.
I have always shrugged it off when somebody came up to me and said: Gee, do you guys ever listen in Washington? Do you pay attention to what is going on? Because I thought we did. I do. But, you know, what I am learning today is that ``we don't. You cannot come on the floor of the Senate day after day and talk about the uninsured population and how we have an obligation to take care of it, and here is a real opportunity to do it--and what is the majority's answer? We are not going to let you vote because we think you are trying to delay.
I am not trying to delay, I say to the majority leader; I am trying to provide health care for minimum wage workers--for maybe 14.6 million people in this country. You know, the sad part is, even if I get this done, there are still 30 million Americans who are uninsured. Maybe the fear is that it will work. Maybe they will find out that when these guys get insurance, they are no longer going to be sick. Maybe they are worried we are going to find out that if they are not sick, our insurance will go down and every American's insurance will go down.
Health care continuously ranks as one of the top issues in this country. I have devoted 13 years now to understanding health care to the degree that I feel like I can walk into an operating room and do a procedure, even without staying at a Holiday Inn Express. But, you know, we are not listening to them. We are not listening to doctors, nurses, community health centers or rural health clinics. And I can tell you this: We are not listening to the American people. We are not doing what we can to provide the opportunity for health care coverage to be extended to them. Do you know what? People with high health care costs, in the absence of having to spend that on health care, are not going to spend it in other areas. It is those other areas that create jobs. It is the groceries, it is the gas, those things they pick up on the way home to eat that fuels our restaurants.
If you want to have good balance and growth in the economy, if you want Americans to be at work, if you want this country to prosper, this is a piece of it. This is a piece to make sure Americans have health care coverage. I am confident this is not the last time we are going to have this debate this year.
We will have a debate, and it will actually be considered germane. I have wondered for the time I sat and listened to the majority leader, what will be the excuse then? Maybe it is because it wasn't their idea. Maybe it is because they would like to wrap it into something bigger.
Well, as I said, 13 years after I have worked on health care--and I see my colleague from Iowa and I know he wants to speak, and I will wrap up, and I don't know anybody who has devoted much more to health care than he has. This is a real opportunity, Mr. President. It is an opportunity for the Senate to actually do something on health care versus sitting on the floor and talking about it. As it stands right now, this opportunity for minimum wage workers in America will not happen because the Senate will be denied the opportunity to vote as to whether they would like this to be part of the plan. Again, I am sure it is difficult for America to believe that this is not germane to the minimum wage bill, as it was to me. But I am not here to battle the interpretation of the Parliamentarian; I am here to suggest to you that one of the reasons we are here is we are supposed to do what is right. We are supposed to pay attention to what is going on across the country, and we are supposed to do what is right to fix it.
I ask you to think that I am doing something right today. I could walk away having a vote where I didn't win. But not getting the opportunity to have a vote cheats America out of the opportunity to begin to turn around our health care system. I hope that between now and Tuesday with the cloture vote, Members on both sides of the aisle will have an opportunity to look at this vote and to encourage the majority leader to allow us to have a vote and, if not, to encourage him to vitiate the cloture vote and allow us to talk some more.
This is important. We ought to spend time talking about major policy shifts. For the 10 years I spent in the House of Representatives, I dreamed of the fact that I could come to this floor, with the tremendous thought and debate that goes into the work here--I am not going to tell you I am disillusioned, but I can tell you this: To take something of this importance and to suggest we are not going to vote on it, or to suggest that when we are talking about ways we can improve a bill, we haven't got time to sit and debate this, that is not the Senate I envisioned before I got here.
That is not the deliberative process, the open and balanced and thoughtful Senate I used to see from the other end of the Capitol. It is my hope that, as we move forward, we will be allowed the opportunity to debate this more. Hopefully, we will be allowed to vote up or down on it. As I said, if I lose, I will save the debate for another day and another bill. We are going to have an opportunity to debate health care, I know. We are going to find more things to agree on than we disagree on. I never envisioned the Senate saying that because this is a tough vote we are not going to take it.
This vote is not near as tough as the fact that 14 million Americans, who are, in all likelihood, minimum wage workers, could have the option of health care if we did this and are not going to have health care if we don't vote. That is not silly, and it is not a delaying tactic; it is policy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WEBB). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Carolina for his timely speech. He knows what I mean by that. I didn't hear all of his remarks, but I did catch the tail end of them, and I think I get the import of his remarks, which is basically that we need to do something about health care in America. We need to debate it, discuss it, vote on it. But to the extent somehow some kind of blame is being laid at the step of those of us on this side of the aisle--after all, we just took over the Senate about 3 weeks ago--I remind my friend from North Carolina that his party has been in charge for the last several years, and they have had the White House. We haven't seen anything come from the White House, nor have we seen anything come out of the Congress to deal with this over the last several years.
Be that as it may, I say to my friend from North Carolina, the President put forward a proposal in his State of the Union Message. We will see what the budget looks like when it comes down next week. I join with him. I hope we will have a good debate and discussion. It is the most important issue we have confronting our society today. But it is not just, I say to my friend from North Carolina, the issue of how we pay the bills and how we pay for people who get sick. The issue is preventive medicine. How do we make prevention pay? How do we make prevention the incentive? How do we incentivize prevention?
I noticed a full-page ad in the Washington Post this week and also in the New York Times talking about prevention is the answer. If we really want to get a handle on cutting down the cost of health care in America, just jiggling how you pay the bills is not going to be the answer. We have to get in front of this issue and make an incentive for people to live a healthier lifestyle, for businesses to provide workplace settings that are healthy, helping to make sure people get their physicals, annual checkups, mammogram screenings, cutting down on smoking, making sure that our schools also teach kids at the earliest age what it means to stay healthy. We are building elementary schools in America now without playgrounds. What kind of nonsense is that?
So our whole thrust on this health care issue, I say to my friend from North Carolina, we always just keep focusing on how we are going to pay the bills. That is a problem, obviously, but if we want to get out ahead of it, we have to start focusing on preventive medicine. I look forward to that debate hopefully soon.
INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to talk about the issue that has been in front of us all week--I assume it is going to be coming to a close early next week--and that is the debate and vote on whether we are going to increase the Federal minimum wage.
I regret that previous Congresses have blocked any increase in the minimum wage. The Senate has rejected 11 attempts to raise the minimum wage since 1998--11 times. Last year, we had 52 Senators vote in favor of it, but we didn't have the 60 Senators to invoke cloture and get to a final vote.
Scores of religious and antipoverty groups have called on Congress time and again to recognize the basic principle that Americans who work full time and play by the rules should not be consigned to poverty.
In 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., said:
We know of no more crucial civil rights issue facing Congress today than the need to increase the Federal minimum wage and extend its coverage. ..... A living wage should be the right of all working Americans.
I join with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and say it ought to be a right. According to the Congressional Research Service, the real value of the minimum wage today, if it had the same purchasing power as it did in 1968, the year Dr. King was so tragically assassinated, if the minimum wage had the same purchasing power today, the minimum wage would be $9.19 an hour. What are we talking about increasing it to? We are talking about increasing it to $7.25 an hour. But at least with the earned-income tax credit, which is new since that time, food stamps--we had food stamps then also, perhaps a little more generous now--that $7.25 an hour would at least get a family of four above the poverty line, and that would be a historic achievement for our Nation.
It is simply immoral to tell working Americans that they ought to try to provide for their family's needs on $5.15 an hour. My colleagues and I who offered this bill respect work, we value work, including the most humble type of work. That is why we fought for years to try to ensure the minimum wage kept pace with inflation and updated periodically. But for 10 years, the leadership has blocked us from increasing it.
Again, I remind my colleagues that the Fair Labor Standards Act, which instituted the minimum wage in 1938, one of the primary aims as enuciated by Franklin Roosevelt was alleviating poverty. Yet now the minimum wage condemns workers to a life of poverty for themselves and their children no matter how hard they work.
Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn about $10,712. That is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The current minimum wage would not even keep a single person and one child above the poverty line.
The inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage has declined by 20 percent since the last increase in 1997. I point out that since that time, Congress has raised its pay eight times, $31,600.
Several of our colleagues have suggested all we have to do is increase the earned-income tax credit and that would address it. I am a supporter of the EITC, the earned-income tax credit. It makes a major difference for millions of
Americans in poverty, but I don't see it as either/or. You make the earned-income tax credit and the minimum wage go hand in hand, and that really does alleviate poverty. There are a lot of people working in minimum wage jobs who don't understand the earned-income tax credit. Their employers may not inform them of it. They may or may not get a mailing. Maybe they can read it, maybe they can't. Possibly no one may inform them of it and they pass it by. That is why we have to raise their pay.
There is another aspect. It is saying to someone: We value your work. Your work is valuable, whether you are cleaning a hotel room, sweeping up, waiting tables. No matter what it is, your work is valuable.
When we erode people's pride in their work, we also erode their sense that they are a valuable, contributing member of our society.
Those who suggest we just expand the EITC seem to be the same ones who say how great the economy was last year. The economy was pretty good last year for those in the top brackets. It is said that a strong economy is a rising tide that lifts all boats. What if you don't own a boat? Shouldn't those at the very bottom also get a raise? Shouldn't a college kid working part time, who is technically not counted as living in poverty, get a raise to help pay for textbooks? Why is their hard work valued at less than one-third of the median wage?
We have heard the outrageous suggestion that a rise in the minimum wage is somehow a threat to the economy. That is nonsense. Just before signing the Fair Labor Standards Act, here is what President Franklin Roosevelt said. You can almost hear the echoes of his voice:
Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day tell you that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.
Today, the average CEO makes a whopping 821 times more than a worker on minimum wage. That is what this chart shows. Back in 1965, 1968, it was about 51, 54--the average CEO made about 50 times more than a minimum wage worker. Today it is 821 times more. That means that the average CEO makes more on one day before lunch than a minimum wage worker makes all year.
I remind my colleagues that corporate profits increased more than 21 percent in 2000 and reached a 40-year high. Yet the minimum wage is at a 50-year low. As a result, people who work for profitable companies making the minimum wage, what happens? They are forced to use public health care. They are forced to get food stamps, another taxpayer-funded assistance, to make ends meet. So are we subsidizing the huge profits that these companies are making, which then turn around and pay their CEOs 821 times more than the minimum wage worker because we are taking tax dollars from the middle class and helping to pay for their food stamps, health care, and other needs?
Some business groups argue that raising the minimum wage would mean that some jobs would be eliminated. In the absence of Federal leadership on the minimum wage, many States have taken it upon themselves to raise the minimum wage. Currently, 30 States, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and, I might add, my own State of Iowa have a minimum wage higher than the Federal minimum of $5.15 an hour. Do you know what. It didn't hurt any of those States.
The Fiscal Policy Institute has studied what happens to small businesses and job growth right after the minimum wage is increased. That is what this chart shows. It shows States that have higher minimum wages and those that don't. Then we see the growth rates. There is not much difference. Both are about the same. So it doesn't hurt growth, business growth, or anything else.
People say: How can that be if they pay a higher minimum wage? How can their growth be the same or sometimes greater than a State that pays less in minimum wage? It is very simple. People who make a decent wage work harder when they get a good night's sleep. If they are working two jobs or have a sick kid at home, they may not get a good night's sleep, and they can't be as attentive to their job. If they sleep in a well-heated apartment instead of a cold flat, when they are able to eat decently and have a good nutritious meal a couple of times a day, they can be more productive. When they can get health care for an abscessed tooth that is driving them nuts rather than going to work and not being attentive to their job, they can be more productive. So when workers earn more money, they contribute more to society, and everybody wins.
Our failure to raise the minimum wage is more than an economic failure. It is a failure of democracy. Again, we live in a society where we can afford to raise the minimum wage. We can afford to have a basic standard of living for anyone willing to work for it. Yet we fail to insist, as Martin Luther King, Jr., said, on this basic right.
Unfortunately, it is hard to get people who earn the minimum wage to come here and lobby for it. They can't afford the time off, much less the airfare or even the gas to get here. Think about this: A worker making minimum wage can buy 2 gallons of gasoline for an hour of labor--an hour of her labor. I say ``her because 59 percent of workers who earn the minimum wage are women.
But even people who won't directly benefit from this legislation overwhelmingly support it. A recent AP poll found that 80 percent of Americans of all income levels favor raising the minimum wage.
This country desperately needs this increase. With declining employer-sponsored health care, the demise of other benefits, including pension benefits, with dramatic costs and other costs of living--housing, for example--workers have to pay for more with less.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition has calculated that the national housing wage--that is the hourly wage needed to pay fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment--was $15.78 an hour in 2005. In other words, the average for a two-bedroom apartment, $15.78 an hour, was the minimum one needed to actually pay for rent and to provide food and other needs for a family.
That is about triple the current minimum wage.
Economists are all saying that we have to raise it, we should raise it. They know it will improve the lives of working Americans without increasing inflation or unemployment. But the average American doesn't need to hear from Nobel Prize-winning economists to understand the basic principle that people who work hard and play by the rules ought to be able to feed their kids, house them, and give them a good education. It is really basic fairness, and it is fundamental economic morality.
America should not be a nation that favors the powerful and well-connected at the expense of low-income workers and their families. It is time to do right by the least fortunate among us. It is time to value and honor the work of those at the bottom of the income scale. After 10 long years, it is time to raise the minimum wage.
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 2007, AT 2 P.M.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 29.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 2:30 p.m., adjourned until Monday, January 29, 2007, at 2 p.m.
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)