Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ``Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act,'' which I am proud to introduce with Senator McCaskill.

Last week, the Nation learned of the serious problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center including decaying, cockroach-infested facilities and an overwhelmed patient-care bureaucracy. As described in a series of articles in the Washington Post by Dana Priest and Anne Hull, wounded soldiers are returning home from the battle in Iraq only to face a new battle to get the care and benefits they have earned.

These stories should not have come as a complete surprise to those who have followed the issue closely. We have long known that troops returning from battle face numerous bureaucratic hurdles when they get home. That's why I introduced legislation last year to smooth the transition from active duty to civilian life. The Lane Evans Bill expands and improves electronic medical records, face-to-face physical exams, better tracking of veterans, and other approaches to make life easier for returning veterans.

However, the stories out of Walter Reed last week did shock my conscience because, like many Senators, I have made the half-hour trek from the Capitol to visit Walter Reed. And I saw what the Army wanted the world to see: a shining world-class facility where the wounded can heal with state-of-the-art care. I never saw mold growing on the walls, or broken elevators, or the lack of adequate support for soldiers and their families. Walter Reed was supposed to be the flagship of military health care. Instead it has become an emblem of much that is wrong with the system, and a harbinger of more severe problems that may be hiding at other military hospitals and facilities that are not in the spotlight.

The problems at Walter Reed stem from complex causes, the most important of which is that the military and VA have not yet prepared for the growing flood of casualties from the Iraq war. Our injured troops did not hesitate to fight for us on the battlefield--we shouldn't make them fight again at home in order to receive the care they deserve. That is why Senator McCaskill and I are introducing the bipartisan Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act today. The bill will fix the problems at Walter Reed and improve care at our military hospitals and facilities.

Our bill would fix deplorable conditions at outpatient residence facilities by setting high standards and increasing accountability. Under this bipartisan measure, the standards will be clear. First, recovering soldiers' rooms will be as good or better as the best standard rooms for active-duty troops. Second, our injured heroes will not have to wait more than two weeks for maintenance problems to be repaired. Third, we will have zero tolerance for pest infestations. And finally, emergency medical personnel and crisis counselors will be available to recovering troops 24 hours a day.

The bill also tackles accountability problems. In the days following the Post stories, the Army vice chief of staff, and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs both said they were surprised by conditions at Walter Reed and directed blame on lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers. I also read in the Army Times that soldiers at Walter Reed have been warned not to talk to the media. Under our bill, we won't have to rely on the media to inform the Congress and the American people of the conditions at military hospitals. It requires that the Inspector General inspect facilities twice a year and report conditions to high-level officials and the public. Under our bill, military leaders will no longer be able to use the excuse that they didn't know conditions on the ground.

When injured servicemembers return home, they along with their family members face a mountain of paperwork and bureaucracy. From the moment a doctor determines a soldier may be unable to return to duty, it takes an average of 209 days for the military to figure out what to do with the soldier. The system is broken, and soldiers and their families are the ones who pay the price. Our bill addresses this problem by bringing the far flung parts of the military's Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) under one roof in each branch of the military. It also puts much of the system online so that caseworkers and servicemembers can manage their documents electronically. Today, students can apply to go to law school or business school online, without ever having to touch a piece of paper. Navigating the Pentagon bureaucracy should be that easy.

Our bill also calls for injury-specific procedures so that the most severely injured servicemembers can skip unnecessary steps. There's no reason why a soldier with a gunshot injury to the spine should face the same procedural hurdles in order to prove his injury was service- related as a soldier with less severe injuries. At the same time, nothing in our bill will prevent those servicemembers who wish to stay in the military from appealing decisions. Our bill also helps soldiers and their families navigate the PDES system with new hotlines, manuals, and an ombudsman to help answer questions.

Another problem at Walter Reed is casework. The caseworkers are doing amazing work helping soldiers schedule medical appointments, prepare paperwork, and obtain their everyday needs. However, the caseworkers are overwhelmed. Some have to care for 50 or more recovering soldiers at a time, more than double the ideal ratio. The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act fixes this problem by forcing the Pentagon to work with each military hospital to set the ideal ratio of caseworkers to patients based on the particular needs of that facility. In the interim, our bill requires a temporary ratio of 1 caseworker for every 20 recovering servicemembers. This will push the Pentagon to begin hiring and training caseworkers right away.

This legislation also provides important new support for family members who often have to endure economic and emotional hardship to accompany their loved one through the recovery process and the currently flawed PDES process. It clarifies that non-medical attendees and family members on invitational orders may receive medical care and mental health counseling while caring for injured loved ones at military facilities. It extends employment and job placement training services to family members. And most important, this bipartisan legislation provides federal protections against a family member on invitational orders being fired. I think we can all agree that a mother should never have to choose between caring for a wounded son or daughter and keeping her job.

Secretary Gates promised a thorough investigation by outside experts and accountability for those responsible. Our bill builds on that model by establishing an Oversight Board of outside experts to review the Pentagon's progress in implementing this bill. The Board would be appointed by Congress and the executive branch and be made up of veterans, wounded soldiers, family members and experts on military medicine. The Oversight Board will be an important check to make sure the Defense Department is following through to care for recovering troops.

We cannot move fast enough to make sure our wounded troops are getting the care they need. No cost is too great. We must pass the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act quickly and follow up with the adequate resources to ensure the men and women recovering at military hospitals across the world get the best care we can offer.

Madam President, I will vote today to bring up a resolution for debate that would disapprove of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq.

Last November, the American people sent a clear message to their representatives in Washington. With their votes, the American people said they wanted a change in direction with regard to the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the White House--and its defenders in the Senate--has ignored that will and fought to keep this day from happening for as long as they could.

We may fail to get the required number of votes to debate this very simple resolution. And even if we do get enough votes, I realize that this resolution may not force a single change to this country's policy in Iraq. I realize that it may not bring the Shiites and Sunnis closer to peace, nor will it bring a single soldier home from this war.

But for the first time in the 4 years of this long, hard war, Democrats and Republicans can join together to express the will of the people who sent us here.

That is why today's vote must be only the beginning, and not the end, of a long-overdue debate on how we plan to exit Iraq and refocus our efforts on the wider war against terror. If more stalemate and inaction follow this resolution, it truly will be a meaningless gesture. It is now the responsibility of every Member of this body to put forth a plan that offers the best path to peace among the Iraqis so that our brave soldiers can finally come home.

Recently, I introduced the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would more importantly begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008--consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President has so assiduously ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1 of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than 2 months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi Government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counterterrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy that I have laid out is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in the November election.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too

many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and many of the Iraqis themselves.

It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy.

It is time to give Iraqis their country back.

And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the challenges we face at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senators Levin and Coleman. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the abuse of secret tax havens and unacceptable tax avoidance strategies. It is a serious solution to a serious problem.

An investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions hold trillions of dollars in assets and are often used as havens for tax evasion, financial fraud, and money laundering. Experts estimate that abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country between $40 billion and $70 billion every year, and the burden of filling this gap is borne unfairly by taxpayers who follow the rules and can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to help them game the system.

The problem is not new, but we need a new solution. Several years ago, the subcommittee heard testimony from the owner of a Cayman Island offshore bank who estimated that all of his clients--100 percent--were engaged in tax evasion, and 95 percent were U.S. citizens. In 2000, the Enron Corporation--remember Enron?--established over 441 offshore entities in the Cayman Islands. A 2004 report found that U.S. multinational corporations are increasingly attributing their profits to offshore jurisdictions. A 2005 study of high-net-worth individuals worldwide estimated that their offshore assets now total $11.5 trillion. The IRS has estimated that more than half a million U.S. taxpayers have offshore bank accounts and access those funds with offshore credit cards.

Unfortunately, the tax, corporate, or bank secrecy laws and practices of about 50 countries make it nearly impossible for American authorities to gain access to necessary information about U.S. taxpayers in order to enforce U.S. tax laws. Today, the Government has the burden of proving that a taxpayer has control of the tax haven entity and is the beneficial owner. This allows taxpayers to rely on the secrecy protections of tax havens to deceive Federal tax authorities and evade taxes.

This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who defy the law or game the system must face consequences. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot sit idly by while tax secrecy jurisdictions impede the enforcement of U.S. law.

Under this bill, if you create a trust or corporation in a tax haven jurisdiction, send it assets, or benefit from its actions, the Federal Government will presume in civil judicial and administrative proceedings that you control the entity and that any income generated by it is your income for tax, securities, and money-laundering purposes. The burden of proof shifts to the corporation or the individual, who may rebut these presumptions by clear and convincing evidence.

This bill provides an initial list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions where these evidentiary presumptions will apply. Taxpayers with foreign financial accounts in Anguilla, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or Dominica, for example, should be prepared to report their accounts to the IRS. And this bill will make it easier for the IRS to find such taxpayers if they do not.

The Treasury Secretary may add to or subtract from the list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions. The list does not reflect a determination that a country is necessarily uncooperative but merely that it is difficult to obtain adequate financial and beneficial ownership information from that country and it is ripe for tax abuse. If an offshore jurisdiction is in fact uncooperative and impedes U.S. tax enforcement, however, this bill gives Treasury the authority to impose sanctions, including the denial of the right to issue credit cards for use in the United States.

This bill also establishes a $1 million penalty on public companies or their officers who fail to disclose foreign holdings and requires hedge funds and private equity funds to establish anti-money laundering programs and to submit suspicious activity reports. Importantly, this bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability. Transactions must have meaningful ``economic substance'' or a business purpose apart from tax avoidance or evasion.

There is no such thing as a free lunch--someone always has to pay. And when a crooked business or shameless individual does not pay its fair share, the burden gets shifted to others, usually to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes.

This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. All of us must pay our fair share of the cost of securing and running this country. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions, and economic structure of our Nation, while evading your responsibility to do your part. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senators Levin and Coleman. This bill seeks to improve the fairness of our tax system by deterring the abuse of secret tax havens and unacceptable tax avoidance strategies. It is a serious solution to a serious problem.

An investigation by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that offshore tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions hold trillions of dollars in assets and are often used as havens for tax evasion, financial fraud, and money laundering. Experts estimate that abusive tax shelters and tax havens cost this country between $40 billion and $70 billion every year, and the burden of filling this gap is borne unfairly by taxpayers who follow the rules and can't afford high-priced lawyers and accountants to help them game the system.

The problem is not new, but we need a new solution. Several years ago, the subcommittee heard testimony from the owner of a Cayman Island offshore bank who estimated that all of his clients--100 percent--were engaged in tax evasion, and 95 percent were U.S. citizens. In 2000, the Enron Corporation--remember Enron?--established over 441 offshore entities in the Cayman Islands. A 2004 report found that U.S. multinational corporations are increasingly attributing their profits to offshore jurisdictions. A 2005 study of high-net-worth individuals worldwide estimated that their offshore assets now total $11.5 trillion. The IRS has estimated that more than half a million U.S. taxpayers have offshore bank accounts and access those funds with offshore credit cards.

Unfortunately, the tax, corporate, or bank secrecy laws and practices of about 50 countries make it nearly impossible for American authorities to gain access to necessary information about U.S. taxpayers in order to enforce U.S. tax laws. Today, the Government has the burden of proving that a taxpayer has control of the tax haven entity and is the beneficial owner. This allows taxpayers to rely on the secrecy protections of tax havens to deceive Federal tax authorities and evade taxes.

This is not a political issue of how low or high taxes ought to be. This is a basic issue of fairness and integrity. Corporate and individual taxpayers alike must have confidence that those who disregard the law will be identified and adequately punished. Those who defy the law or game the system must face consequences. Those who enforce the law need the tools and resources to do so. We cannot sit idly by while tax secrecy jurisdictions impede the enforcement of U.S. law.

Under this bill, if you create a trust or corporation in a tax haven jurisdiction, send it assets, or benefit from its actions, the Federal Government will presume in civil judicial and administrative proceedings that you control the entity and that any income generated by it is your income for tax, securities, and money-laundering purposes. The burden of proof shifts to the corporation or the individual, who may rebut these presumptions by clear and convincing evidence.

This bill provides an initial list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions where these evidentiary presumptions will apply. Taxpayers with foreign financial accounts in Anguilla, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, or Dominica, for example, should be prepared to report their accounts to the IRS. And this bill will make it easier for the IRS to find such taxpayers if they do not.

The Treasury Secretary may add to or subtract from the list of offshore secrecy jurisdictions. The list does not reflect a determination that a country is necessarily uncooperative but merely that it is difficult to obtain adequate financial and beneficial ownership information from that country and it is ripe for tax abuse. If an offshore jurisdiction is in fact uncooperative and impedes U.S. tax enforcement, however, this bill gives Treasury the authority to impose sanctions, including the denial of the right to issue credit cards for use in the United States.

This bill also establishes a $1 million penalty on public companies or their officers who fail to disclose foreign holdings and requires hedge funds and private equity funds to establish anti-money laundering programs and to submit suspicious activity reports. Importantly, this bill clarifies that the sole purpose of a transaction cannot legitimately be to evade tax liability. Transactions must have meaningful ``economic substance'' or a business purpose apart from tax avoidance or evasion.

There is no such thing as a free lunch--someone always has to pay. And when a crooked business or shameless individual does not pay its fair share, the burden gets shifted to others, usually to ordinary taxpayers and working Americans without access to sophisticated tax preparers or corporate loopholes.

This bill strengthens our ability to stop shifting the tax burden to working families. All of us must pay our fair share of the cost of securing and running this country. There is no excuse for benefiting from the laws and services, institutions, and economic structure of our Nation, while evading your responsibility to do your part. I believe it is our job to keep the system fair, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

I commend Senator Levin and Senator Coleman for their leadership on this important issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a bill I am proud to introduce today with Senators Bayh and Coburn to help close the tax gap by improving the reporting of capital gains income. This bill requires brokerage firms and mutual fund companies to track and report the adjusted cost basis of their clients' stock, bond, and mutual fund investments.

This bill is a simple, commonsense solution to a serious problem. Many taxpayers have a hard enough time filing their taxes. One of the most complex parts of an individual's tax return is the schedule for capital gains income. And what makes capital gains particularly difficult is the challenge of figuring out the adjusted basis of a security that has been sold.

Many taxpayers lack the proper records or knowledge to calculate adjusted basis for a stock that has split or been exchanged as part of a company's merger or acquisition. And right now, the IRS does not have the ability to monitor the accuracy of taxpayer calculations. As a result, there is a clear risk of error or fraud. In some cases, taxpayers may end up paying too much in taxes. More often, they report too little income and thus pay too little in taxes.

In 2001, the IRS estimated that underreporting cost the Treasury $11 billion annually. Today the loss is even greater.

Because the IRS fails to collect these funds, the rest of us have to pay higher taxes than we should. Most people pay their taxes honestly and follow the law to the best of their ability. But a small number of tax frauds--who often owe great amounts of taxes--cheat the system. And it's hard now for the IRS to stop them.

This bill makes it easier to stop these cases of fraud and it helps reduce the amount of Federal tax dollars owed that the IRS fails to collect each year. Brokerage firms and mutual fund companies will be required to keep track of a taxpayer's cost basis and to report that information to the IRS. This will make it easier for honest taxpayers to calculate their taxable capital gain, and harder for dishonest taxpayers to lie about it. Based on information from

the Taxpayer Advocate, reporting to the IRS can improve compliance of capital gains reporting from an estimated 50 percent today to 90 percent.

Fortunately, this new reporting requirement will not pose an undue burden to the financial firms affected. First, the firms will have plenty of time to put the necessary systems in place since the reporting requirement will not take effect until 2009, and then will only apply to securities acquired starting in 2009. Second, technology has made tracking by financial firms simple and efficient. More than 80 percent of all retail accounts already subscribe to a national reporting service for transferring basis information at a nominal cost per account. Finally, in cases where it is impossible to track basis, the Treasury Secretary and the IRS may develop regulations to require alternative information.

It is estimated that $345 billion of Federal taxes goes uncollected each year. This bill doesn't solve that full problem, but it is a step in the right direction. It reduces the Federal deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending. It simplifies the tax filing process and reduces the chance of error or fraud. It applies what we know about the clear benefits of automatic reporting to the IRS--which is required now for wage income--to capital gains income as well.

This bill makes sense. It's good policy. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it and in helping to improve our tax code.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 53, and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 16, S. Res. 50.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, February 15; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 10:20 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein and with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 10:20 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 24 and 26, that debate run concurrently until 10:30 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees; that at 10:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on Executive Calendar No. 24, to be followed immediately by a vote on Executive Calendar No. 26; that upon conclusion of the votes, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and the President immediately notified of the Senate's action; that the Senate then resume legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business, Senator Leahy to be recognized for up to 1 hour, to be followed by an hour under the control of the Republican leader or his designee, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls.

It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor.

We saw countless examples in this past election. Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in Spanish that, ``if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration.''

Or the voters in Maryland who received a ``democratic sample ballot'' featuring a Republican candidate for Governor and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senator.

Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called ``Virginia Elections Commission'' informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.

Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.

Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are made with only one goal in mind--to keep Americans away from the polls. We see these problems year after year and election and after election, and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices in time for the next election.

That is why I am reintroducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. It's a bill that makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it contains strong penalties so that people who commit these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the wrist. The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes-- people who are prevented from voting by misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed voters with accurate information so they can cast their votes in time.

Senator Schumer has joined me in introducing this legislation, and we are joined by our colleagues, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senators Cardin, Feingold, Kerry, Feinstein and Clinton as original co-sponsors to this bill.

There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult and political. Making sure that every American can cast a ballot shouldn't be one of them. There is no place for politics in this debate--no room for those who feel that they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls. It's time to get this done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe this bill can make it happen.

I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times editorial from January 31, 2007, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls.

It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor.

We saw countless examples in this past election. Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in Spanish that, ``if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration.''

Or the voters in Maryland who received a ``democratic sample ballot'' featuring a Republican candidate for Governor and a Republican candidate for U.S. Senator.

Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called ``Virginia Elections Commission'' informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.

Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.

Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are made with only one goal in mind--to keep Americans away from the polls. We see these problems year after year and election and after election, and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices in time for the next election.

That is why I am reintroducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. It's a bill that makes voter intimidation and deception punishable by law, and it contains strong penalties so that people who commit these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the wrist. The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes-- people who are prevented from voting by misinformation--by establishing a process for reaching out to these misinformed voters with accurate information so they can cast their votes in time.

Senator Schumer has joined me in introducing this legislation, and we are joined by our colleagues, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senators Cardin, Feingold, Kerry, Feinstein and Clinton as original co-sponsors to this bill.

There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult and political. Making sure that every American can cast a ballot shouldn't be one of them. There is no place for politics in this debate--no room for those who feel that they can gain a partisan advantage by keeping people away from the polls. It's time to get this done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe this bill can make it happen.

I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times editorial from January 31, 2007, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to support a long overdue raise for America's lowest paid workers from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

As you know, more than 6 million hourly workers currently earn less than $7.25 an hour. They work hard, they pay taxes, they try to raise strong families. For a few them, it is a first job, they are young, and they do not have to support anyone else. But 80 percent of them are adults, and about half of them are their household's primary breadwinner. Forty-seven percent of them are poor, and many have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

Work should keep Americans out of poverty. It should make it possible for you to live with dignity and respect, to have a comfortable place to live in a safe neighborhood, to see a doctor, to have a shot at education, to save a little money, to enjoy the opportunities of this great country. But that's out of reach for most people at $5.15 and hour. It is time that we do better by those in our workforce who make the least.

The Federal minimum wage is at its lowest inflation-adjusted level since 1955, and it has been stagnant for almost a decade. That does not reflect well on our country and Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of an increase. In fact 29 States and countless cities have taken action and set higher minimums of their own. It is time for the Federal Government to do the same. And I know we can achieve that in a bipartisan way.

We have had a vigorous debate about the impact of the minimum wage on employment levels and on small businesses. And I agree that all policy decisions must be made with full consideration of possible unintended consequences. But the evidence clearly indicates that raising the minimum wage is good for workers and that the effects on small businesses are negligible.

Following the most recent increase in the Federal minimum wage in 1997, the low-wage labor market actually performed better than it had in decades, with lower unemployment rates, higher average hourly wages, higher family income and lower rates of poverty. And most studies of State minimum wage increases have found no measurable negative impact on employment.

A group of 650 economists, including several Nobel laureates, recently issued a statement, saying: ``We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects that critics have claimed.''

They further note:

While controversy about the precise employment effects of

the minimum wage continues, research has shown that most of

the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast

majority are members of low-income working families.

But raising the minimum wage is not just good economics, it is also a statement of our commitment to each other as Americans. I am convinced that most Americans agree that the person who serves your food or handles your checkout at the grocery store deserves to be paid a decent wage. Most people agree that parents working full time--no matter what their job or occupation--should not have to raise their children in poverty.

In fact, I think that most Americans worry, as I do, that even $7.25 an hour

is not enough in many parts of the country where a living wage that would cover housing, schooling and healthcare needs might have to be twice as high or more.

But the increase to $7.25 would restore the value of the minimum wage that inflation has eroded since the last increase nearly a decade ago. It would mean an additional $4,200 in annual earnings for a full-time, minimum wage worker. It would trigger additional increases in the earned-income tax credit for low-income parents.

Today, a family of four with one minimum-wage earner lives in poverty. With the increase in the minimum wage, that family would be lifted 5 percent above the poverty line instead of being 11 percent below the poverty line in 2009, as it would be under current law.

The minimum wage cannot be the end of our commitment to help working families. But it is an important place to start.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.