Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent S. 80 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 742 received from the House.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 13; that on Tuesday, 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 be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 12:30 p.m., the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m., for the conference recess period; that upon reconvening at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume H.J. Res. 20 and that the time until 2:30 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that at 2:30 p.m., without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 20; that on Tuesday Members have until 12 noon to file second-degree amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 23; that the nomination be confirmed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements thereon be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate return to legislative session.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in my home State of Vermont and all across this country, the American people are deeply concerned about the war in Iraq. They want real debate here in Washington on this issue and, more importantly, they want real action.

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why some of my colleagues, regardless of what their position on the war might be, would try to prevent a vote on what is at best a very modest proposal that was brought forth this afternoon. If you like the Warner bill, you should vote for it. If you do not like it, you should vote against it. But in fairness to the American people, we should have a serious debate and a vote on this issue.

Let me be very clear in giving you my perspective on this war. In my view, President Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster. It is a war we were misled into and a war many of us believed we never should have gotten into in the first place.

This is a war which the administration was unprepared to fight. The administration has shown little understanding of the enemy or the historical context or the cultural context in which we found ourselves. Who will forget President Bush declaring ``mission accomplished'' aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln when, in fact, the mission had barely begun? Who will forget Vice President Cheney telling us that the insurgency was in its ``last throes,'' just before some of the bloodiest months of the war took place? Who will ever forget those Bush advisers who predicted that the war would be a cakewalk--nothing to worry about--and that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators?

This war in Iraq has come at a very, very high price in so many ways. This is a war which has cost us terribly in American blood. As of today, we have lost some 3,100 brave American soldiers, twenty-three thousand more have been wounded, and tens of thousands will come home with post-traumatic stress disorder.

This is a war which, with the President's proposed increase, will cost us some $500 billion, with the price tag going up by $8 billion every single month. This cost is going to add to the huge national debt we are already leaving to our children and grandchildren. And it is going to make it more difficult for us to fund health care, education, environmental protection, affordable housing, childcare, and the pressing needs of the middle class and working families of our country, not to mention the needs of our veterans, whose numbers are rapidly increasing as a result of this war.

This is a war which has caused unimaginable horror for the people of Iraq. People who had suffered so long under the brutality of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship are suffering even more today. There are estimates that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded and almost 2 million have been forced to flee their country--some 8 percent of their population.

While civil war tears neighborhoods apart, children are without schools, and the Iraqi people lack electricity, health care, and other basic necessities of life. The doctors and nurses, teachers and administrators who have provided the professional infrastructure for the people of Iraq are now long gone.

This is a war which has lowered our standing in the international community to an all-time low in our lifetimes, with leaders in democratic countries hesitant to work with us because of the lack of respect their citizens have for our President. Long-time friends and allies are simply wondering what is going on in the United States today. This is a war which has stretched our active-duty military to the breaking point, as well as our National Guard and Reserve forces. Morale in the military is low, and this war will have lasting impacts on the future recruitment, retention, and readiness of our Nation's military. This is a war which has in many respects lowered our capability to effectively fight the very serious threats of international terrorism and Islamic extremism.

Five years after the horrific attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden remains free. Using the presence of United States troops in Iraq as their rallying call, al-Qaida's strength around the world continues to grow and the situation in Afghanistan is currently becoming more and more difficult.

Tragically, this administration has refused to listen to the American people who, in this last election, made it very clear that they want a new direction in Iraq, and they want this war wound down, not escalated.

This administration has refused to listen to the thoughtful suggestions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which included two former Secretaries of State, including President Bush's own father's Secretary of State, as well as a former Presidential chief of staff and a former Secretary of Defense, that it was time for a change in direction. This administration has refused to listen to the advice of our military leaders in Iraq who told us that increasing troops from the United States would make it easier for the Iraqi Government and military to avoid their political and military responsibilities.

This administration has refused to listen to the Iraqi people who, according to a number of polls, have told us very strongly that they believe, in the midst of all of the horror and turmoil and violence within their country, that they would be safer and more secure if our troops left their country.

In fact, this administration has tragically refused to listen to almost anybody except that same shrinking inner circle, led by the Vice President, who has consistently been wrong on this issue from day one.

As most everybody understands and as the recent National Intelligence Estimate has confirmed, the situation today in Iraq is extremely dire. The sad truth is there are now no good options before us; there are simply less bad options. In Iraq today, according to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, there are now at least four separate wars being fought, wars that our soldiers who have fought with incredible bravery and skill find themselves in the middle of.

Let me quote Secretary Gates, who has recently stated:

I believe there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq.

One is Shia on Shia, principally in the south; the second is

sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad but not solely.

Third is the insurgency, and fourth is Al Queda.

The reality today, as described by the Secretary of Defense, has nothing to do with why President Bush got us into this war in the first place. In March of 2002, he told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they were poised to use those weapons against us. That was not true and certainly has no relevance to the war today. In 2002, the President told us Iraq was somehow linked to al-Qaida and bore some responsibility for the horrific 9/11 attack against our country. That also turned out not to be true and has no relevance to the situation we find ourselves in today.

In the 2006 elections, the American people, in a loud and unmistakable voice, told us they no longer had confidence in the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. In my view, they told us they wanted Congress to begin asserting its constitutional authority over this war, and they wanted us to rein in the administration. Most importantly, they told us they wanted us to begin the process of bringing our troops home as soon as possible. And as a Vermont Senator, that is exactly the effort I intend to make.

In my view, the Warner resolution is far too weak. It is a baby step forward. Whether it is passed or not, it must be followed with much stronger legislation, legislation that has real teeth. Instead of just voicing our disapproval of President Bush's escalation of the war with a nonbinding resolution, we should now be considering legislation that provides for the safe and orderly redeployment of virtually all of our troops out of Iraq within the next year, even as we continue to give support to the Iraq Government and their military for the purpose of helping them accept their political and military responsibilities. That is the legislation we should be debating. That is the legislation we should be passing.

How can we accomplish this withdrawal and redeployment? Regardless of what happens with the nonbinding Warner bill, in the very near future we must bring forth legislation on to the floor of the Senate that would prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces without a specific new authorization from the Congress. Secondly, we must consider legislation to require a schedule for the return home of a majority of American forces and the redeployment of the rest of the American forces from Iraq to other places. Finally, we must vote against any additional funding to increase troop levels. In addition, we must set conditions in any future funding bill so that the President is obliged to begin winding down this war.

We are mired in a war that has gone on longer than American involvement in either the First World War or the Second World War. We will spend more money on this war in real dollars than we spent on either the Korean war or the war in Vietnam. Our standing in the international community has declined, and our ability to combat international terrorism has been seriously compromised. It is time to say no to this ill-conceived escalation. It is time to deploy our troops out of harm's way. It is time to end this war.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 153 and the bill be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the resolution of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 26, 2007, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 6; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be 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 with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority and the time allocated 10 minutes each: Leahy, Mikulski, and Kennedy; that the Republicans control the next 30 minutes, with the time until 12:30 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the majority and the minority; that the Senate recess from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m., Tuesday in order to accommodate the respective conference work periods and to permit Members to attend an intelligence briefing which begins at 2:30 p.m.

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

I have an amendment dealing with poverty in America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that it be in order for me to call up amendment No. 201, and once the amendment is reported by number, I be recognized under the order and, at the conclusion of my statement, the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating Senator Kennedy for his strong leadership on the need to raise the minimum wage--a minimum wage that has not been raised for 10 years.

Let me also congratulate my colleague from Ohio, the current Presiding Officer, for his fine remarks, which I certainly concur with.

The United States of America is the richest country in the history of the world. Unfortunately, despite our great wealth, nearly 13 percent of our citizens are living in poverty, and we have today the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country in the industrialized world. In my opinion, we have a moral responsibility to end childhood poverty in America.

Therefore, the amendment I am offering today simply expresses the sense of the Senate that, No. 1, we have a moral obligation to improve the lives of nearly 37 million Americans living in poverty, including nearly 13 million children; No. 2, we have to address the reality that in the United States today we have, by far, the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major industrialized country, and that we have a moral obligation to reduce that growing gap between the rich and the poor; No. 3, and most important, this amendment calls upon the President to submit a plan to Congress which eradicates childhood poverty over the next decade and reduces the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

As a nation, we are often very proud of our accomplishments. How often do we hear people say, ``U.S.A., No. 1''? I share that sentiment. Certainly, in so many areas our country is leading and has led the rest of the world, and we are all very proud of that.

Unfortunately, in terms of childhood poverty, within the industrialized world, we are also No. 1. We are No. 1 in having the highest rate of childhood poverty among any major country in the world, and that is not a No. 1 of which we should be proud.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the childhood poverty rate in the United States today is nearly 18 percent. According to data from the Luxembourg Income Study Group, the childhood poverty rate in the United States is even higher, almost 22 percent.

Well, let's take a look at what childhood poverty rates are in other major countries, in many of the countries that we compete against economically. In Germany, the childhood poverty rate is 9 percent. In France, it is 7.9 percent. In Austria, it is 6.7 percent. In Sweden, it is 4.2 percent. In Norway, it is 3.4 percent. In Finland, the childhood poverty rate is only 2.8 percent--2.8 percent in Finland, over 18 percent in the United States of America. There is something wrong with that equation.

Have other countries succeeded when they put their minds to reducing childhood poverty rates? The answer is yes.

In 1999, the British Government--our good friends in the United Kingdom--made a commitment to address childhood poverty. Six years later, child poverty in the United Kingdom had been cut by 20 percent. Similar progress, as I understand it, has been made in Ireland.

Unfortunately, at the same time that Britain was taking important steps to reduce childhood poverty, in the United States childhood poverty increased by about 12 percent. The situation is bad, and we are moving in the wrong direction.

When we hear our fellow Senators come to the floor and say the United States is the greatest country on Earth, I share that sentiment. But I do not share the sentiment that the greatest country on Earth should have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, and that rate is growing higher and higher. We have to address that issue. We cannot sweep it under the carpet.

While we continue to have the highest rate of childhood poverty, and while over 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty since George W. Bush has been President, there is another issue that this Senate has to address, and that is the growing oligarchic nature of our society. It is not talked about too much, but I think we should place it on the table.

Today, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and the CEOs of our largest corporations now earn over 800

times what a minimum wage worker earns. Today in America the wealthiest 13,000 families who constitute one one-hundreeth of 1 percent of the population receive almost as much income as the bottom 20 million American families in the United States; one one-hundreth of 1 percent receive almost as much income as the bottom 20 million American families. That, in my view, is not what America is supposed to be.

Mr. President, working with the President of the United States, working in a bipartisan manner, we have to come up with ideas, place them on the table, and end the disgrace of having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Other countries are making progress; we can do the same.

Mr. President, at the same time, we have to reverse this trend by which fewer and fewer people own more and more wealth, while more and more people have less; while poverty increases and while the middle class shrinks.

The true greatness of a country does not lie in the number of millionaires and billionaires that it has; rather, a great nation is one in which justice, equality, and dignity prevail.

I close with a quote that none other than President George W. Bush made on January 20, 2001. I quote from President Bush:

In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep,

persistent poverty is unworthy of our Nation's promise. Where

there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not

strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities.

And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless. And I can

pledge our Nation to a goal: When we see that wounded

traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the

other side.

George W. Bush.

The President was right to make that pledge, but since he made that statement, we all know that over 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, including over 1 million children.

Let us turn that pledge to reality. We can begin to do that by raising the minimum wage, and we can begin to do that by coming up with a plan, with a program, with legislation which eliminates childhood poverty in America and lowers the gap between the rich and the poor.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. I commend Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue. This important legislation would increase the Federal minimum wage from the abysmally low $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over a 2-year period.

Let us make no mistake about it, this bill will benefit millions of workers and their families. It is very long overdue. Anyone who works 40 hours a week in the United States of America should not be living in abject poverty. It is a moral disgrace that Congress has not increased the minimum wage since 1997. Yes, Congress has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to people who don't need it, but somehow, over a 10-year period, Congress has not reached out to millions of workers making the minimum wage and raised that wage.

Today's minimum wage workers have less buying power than minimum wage workers did back in 1955, when Dwight Eisenhower was President. Simply put, a job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in poverty.

At the current Federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, a person working full time makes less than $11,000 per year before taxes, which is approximately $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three.

Moreover, while the cost of living has skyrocketed, the value of the minimum wage has eroded by over 20 percent since the last increase. Today, nearly 13 million workers, 10 percent of the United States workforce, would directly or indirectly benefit from a raise in the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; 5.5 million workers would benefit directly, 7.4 million workers would benefit indirectly, and more than 60 percent of those who would benefit are women.

In addition to workers, millions of American families would benefit from a raise in the minimum wage, including nearly 6 million children who would see their parents' earnings increase.

But some will argue that an increase in the minimum wage will primarily benefit teenagers. I think the evidence is quite strong that that is not the case. Further, recently, over 650 economists, including Nobel Prize winners and past presidents of the American Economics Association, released a statement calling for a raise in the minimum wage. They confirm 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. . . . The weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have very little or no effect on employment.''

Moreover, and interestingly, a recent Gallup Poll revealed that 86 percent of small business owners today do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage would hurt their business. Three-fourths of small business owners thought a 10-percent increase would have no effect on them. In fact, nearly half of those polled thought the minimum wage should be increased.

While I believe it is important to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, it is clear to me that much more needs to be done. We should see this increase--long overdue--in the minimum wage as simply a start to address the disgraceful reality that more and more of our fellow Americans are living in poverty, and it is an outrage that today in the United States of America we have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world.

In the last 10 years, what we have seen in our country is a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. We have seen the wealthiest people become ever wealthier. But what we have also seen, since President Bush has been in office, is that over 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty. The rich become richer, the poor become poorer, and the middle class continues to shrink. In my view, raising the minimum wage is an important start in attempting to address the crisis of poverty in America, but it is clear to me that we have to do much more. Among many other things we have to do, we must address the reality in America today that we are losing millions of good-paying manufacturing jobs and good-paying white-collar information technology jobs because of our disastrous trade agreements.

The time is now to begin to fundamentally rethink our trade agreements so we can begin to create good-paying jobs here in the United States, so our young people will be able to make it to the middle class rather than to continue to struggle year after year in poverty.

We have to take a hard look at the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, which today make it increasingly hard for workers to form unions. If workers are able to collectively negotiate a contract, very often the wages they get will be substantially higher than if they did not have a union. So in raising the minimum wage, what we are doing today is saying to millions of workers who are struggling desperately to keep

their heads above water, we understand what you are going through. We understand it is an outrage that for a 10-year period this Congress has not raised the minimum wage, and the purchasing value of the minimum wage has declined. But I hope that what we are doing this week is simply a start to address the very serious economic problems facing not only low-income Americans but the middle class as well.

I hope that this Senate, this Congress, will begin focusing its attention on the decline of the middle class, the increase of poverty, and come up with economic and fiscal policies that benefit all Americans and not just the wealthy and large multinational corporations.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 57.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, let me begin by applauding Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, and all of those who are responsible for advancing this important ethics reform bill. There is no question but that the confidence of the American people in the Congress is now at an almost alltime low. There is no question there have been ethical abuses in Congress in recent years. And there is no question but that we should support the strongest ethics reform possible.

Members of Congress do not need free lunches from lobbyists. Members of Congress do not need free tickets to ball games. And they do not need huge discounts for flights on corporate jets. Congress does need transparency in earmarks and holds, and we do need a new policy regarding the revolving door by which a Member one year is writing a piece of legislation and the next year finds himself or herself working for the company that benefited from the legislation he or she wrote. In other words, we need to pass the strongest ethics reform bill possible. But in passing this legislation, we need to understand this is not the end of our work but, rather, it is just the beginning, and much more needs to be done.

Today in the United States of America, the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. In fact, the people at the top, the very wealthiest people in our country, have never, ever had it so good since the 1920s. The sad truth is that Congress, especially over the last 6 years, has not only failed to respond to this crisis, to the decline of the middle class, but in many ways Congress has made the situation even worse.

Time and time again, this Congress has chosen to ignore the needs of ordinary Americans and, instead, has acted on behalf of the interests of the wealthiest and most powerful people in our country. In fact, much of the legislation that has come to the floor of the House and the Senate in recent years has clearly come at the behest of multimillion- dollar corporate interests. This has included a Medicare part D prescription drug bill that, while costing the taxpayers of this country a huge amount of money, in fact provides a relatively weak benefit for our seniors.

Included in this bill, as I think seniors all over this country are beginning to understand, is a very large doughnut hole in which they are going to have to pay 100 percent of the cost of their prescription drugs.

Also, included in that bill is language which prevents the Government from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices for the American people. We pay today the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and yet the Government is prevented from negotiating for lower prices. Meanwhile, despite strong majority support in the House and the Senate, Congress has failed to pass legislation widely supported by the American people that would allow for the reimportation of safe, affordable prescription drugs from well- regulated countries such as Canada and from Europe that would provide huge discounts to Americans of all ages.

At the same time, while there is more and more concern in our country and throughout the world about the danger of global warming and what it will mean for our planet and for our children and our grandchildren, Congress has failed to adequately fund energy efficiency and sustainable energy. But somehow Congress did manage to fund an energy bill that includes billions and billions of dollars in tax giveaways and subsidies to the largest oil companies in America, companies that are enjoying recordbreaking profits, as well as tax breaks and subsidies to other big-energy interests.

Most American workers now know that our current trade policies have failed and that they have failed miserably. During the last 5 years we have lost some 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs, and we are now on the cusp of losing millions of good-paying, white-collar information technology jobs. In my own State of Vermont, not a major manufacturing center, we have lost 20 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 5 years alone, and we just learned the other day that another 175 jobs in Middlebury, VT, are going to be lost because of global competition. Yet despite a $700 billion trade deficit and the loss of millions of good- paying jobs, Congress refuses to fundamentally change our trade policies, a change that is desperately needed.

I know some people like to talk about ``special interests,'' but the truth is that special interests, as I understand them, in fact, are corporate and monied interests. What do we mean when we talk about special interests? Are we talking about millions of American working families who are struggling to keep their heads above water economically? Are they a ``special interest''? I don't think they are. Are we talking about the children of America, 18 percent of whom are living in poverty? Are they a ``special interest''? Not to my mind. Are we talking about millions of seniors who want nothing more than to live out their retirement years with some form of economic security and dignity? Are they ``special interests''? I don't believe they are.

The challenge we face is to rein in the influence and the power that lobbyists and their large corporate clients have over the Congress. The problem is not that the children of America have too much power. It is not that working people have too much power. The problem is that big- money interests, to a very significant degree, dominate what goes on in Washington, DC.

The lobbying reform legislation that we are considering is a very important step forward in addressing that issue. I thank Senators Reid, Feinstein, Lieberman, Feingold, Obama, and all of those on both sides of the aisle who have worked hard on this issue for their leadership on lobbying reform so that we can begin to restore the confidence of the American people in Congress. But we must keep in mind that while we are eliminating the $20 lunches and the club-level tickets to local sporting events, this bill does not address what is an even more pressing issue; namely, the $10,000 campaign contributions that come from corporate PACs. We have a fundamental problem which literally threatens our democratic form of government, and that is that Senators and Members of the House and their challengers are forced to raise millions and millions and millions of dollars in order to run a winning campaign.

In terms of campaign contributions, let's be very clear. Despite what anyone may have heard, corporate interests are king. They run the show. From 1998 to 2005, for example, drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry--$900 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. They donated a total of $89.9 million in the same period to Federal candidates and party committees.

We hear a lot about ``labor money'' and about ``big labor.'' But, in fact, corporate interests give more than 10 times as much to candidates than do labor unions. In the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, labor gave less than $50 million. That is a lot of money, $50 million. But corporate interests gave well over $525 million--$50 million/$525 million, 10 times as much. That disparity may well explain why the needs of working Americans all too often take a back seat to corporate interests in the Congress. But, more importantly, it tells us why we need real campaign finance reform so that the needs of all Americans are heard rather than just those who can afford to make huge campaign contributions.

To strengthen our democracy we need reforms on a number of fronts. We certainly need to pass this lobbying reform bill, but we also need very strong campaign finance reform. My own view is that we need to move toward public funding of elections. We also need

media reform to stem the growing concentration of ownership among television, radio, and newspaper companies with the result that what Americans see, hear, and read is increasingly controlled by fewer and fewer media conglomerates. Most importantly, in my view, if we are going to change the balance of power, if ordinary Americans are going to get their day in Washington, DC, we need a revival of a grassroots democratic movement from one end of this country to the other, where ordinary people begin to stand up and say: Washington, DC, pay attention to my needs rather than just the needs of large corporate interests.

I understand that the legislation before us today relates only to issues around lobbying reform and that many of the other critical issues I have laid out will be considered at a later time. That is why I have offered the amendment we have before us today. The amendment will provide this body with some of the information it will need when we address campaign finance reform at a later date.

Specifically, this amendment requires the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress, created by the underlying legislation, to report on the aggregate amount of campaign contributions given by certain identified corporate interests 24 months prior to and within 6 months after the passage of four specified pieces of legislation. These four pieces of legislation are the Medicare Part D Program, the bankruptcy reform bill, the Energy bill, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

The goal of this report is to begin to throw some light on the volume of corporate contributions that are showered on Congress when legislation important to multinationals comes before the Congress. As a result, this report will focus on the amounts given and the identity of the givers.

It is our obligation to return control of the Congress to the American people. I look forward to helping make that happen with the ethics reform bill we are now considering and the many other equally critical reforms that voters across this great Nation told us they wanted this past November.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007. There are many critically important issues that we face, including education, health care, the growing and inexcusable economic inequality in this country, and the situation in Iraq. Among these issues has to be the threat faced by the earth itself due to global warming and that is why this legislation is the first bill that I am introducing as a U.S. Senator.

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the full text of which I ask be included in the Record following my remarks, was initially introduced last year by the Senator whose seat I currently hold, Senator Jim Jeffords. Jim's leadership in offering a forwardthinking global warming bill is known by all in this chamber and I am honored to continue his efforts by introducing this tremendously-important legislation today.

This bill, is being cosponsored by many of my esteemed colleagues and I would like to recognize them this morning: Senator Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Senior Senator from the great state of Vermont, Mr. Leahy; both Senators from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Menendez; Senators Reed and Whitehouse, both from Rhode Island; the Senate delegation from the State of Hawaii, Senators Inouye and Akaka; and Senator Feingold of Wisconsin and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. I appreciate the support of these colleagues in focusing attention on the most important environmental issue of our time and urge my other colleagues to join in this effort.

I am also proud that the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act has the support of numerous national groups, including the Earth Day Network, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and US PIRG.

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act is based on the scientific evidence and consensus that global warming poses a significant threat to the United States and the world. In fact, with our national security, our economy, our public health and welfare, and our global environment at stake, we must do nothing short of taking bold action. To that end, I am proud that last week the Vermont state legislature began 3 weeks of hearings on global warming. Like Americans across the country, they want action to fight global warming and they wish their Federal Government would step up and provide leadership commensurate with the magnitude of the threat. Well, Mr President this bill answers those pleas for leadership.

Grassroots support for action on global warming is clear. Over 300 mayors have committed their cities to meeting the standards described in the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, with over 54 million citizens represented, the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement provides clear evidence that everyday citizens--unlike some large corporations who have continually misrepresented the science of global warming--want to see movement on this issue. Additionally, a group of northeast States, including Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, have already implemented a regional effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other northeastern States, such as Maryland and Massachusetts, are likely to join this group soon. And, we all know that the State of California has recognized the need to act on global warming and is moving forward with a tremendous program.

Despite the increasing calls for action, for years, the Bush administration has turned a deaf ear as the scientific community warned us of the problem of global warming and the disastrous impact it will have on our planet. Sadly, many of these predictions are now becoming a reality.

Global concentrations of greenhouse gases are incredibly high. In fact, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has risen to 378 parts per million--a level unseen during anytime over the past 400,000 years. Additionally, on a global scale, 8 of the 10 years between 1996 and the end of 2005 are among the warmest 10 years on record and experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have just logged 2006 as the hottest year on record for the U.S. Also, the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that the majority of the ice caps of the Arctic Ocean will melt by the summer of 2040--decades earlier than previously expected. And, the situation has become so dramatic that the Department of the Interior recently suggested listing polar bears on the endangered species list because their habitat is quite literally disappearing. We are also told to expect changes in agriculture and water systems, new threats to our health, and more extreme weather patterns including more intense hurricanes. All of this is due to global warming caused by the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are released into our atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels.

The good news is that we know how to stop continued global warming-- we simply need the political will to make it happen. The time is now for bold action that will move our country away from fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil towards efficient, sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, bio-mass and hydrogen. The bill I introduce today recognizes the urgency of our circumstances and sets targets for reduction of U.S. emissions to help stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 parts per million, a critical level as recognized by leading climate scientists. More specifically, this legislation calls for an 80 percent decrease-- compared to 1990 levels--in global warming pollutants by 2050 by enacting a combination of mandatory reduction targets and incentives that will help develop clean alternative energies.

The concept is simple. By putting our minds to it, we can usher in a new era of nonpolluting, renewable energy sources. And, what makes this proposal even more exciting is its potential to reshape our economy and make the United States a leader in clean and efficient energy technologies--creating millions of good paying jobs in the process.

In fact, it is a lack of bold vision that will financially cost us. In October of 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, turned the old economic arguments against taking action on climate change on their head. In a report to the British government, he writes that bold action to combat the threat of global warming will in fact save industrial nations money and that inaction could cost between 5 to 20 percent of global gross domestic product. Speaking to the issue in no uncertain terms, the report states, ``If no action is taken we will be faced with the kind of downturn that has not been seen since the great depression and the two world wars.''

To be quite frank, the time for talk is over. It is time for action and introduction of this bill signals my commitment to pushing for such action.

While I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords' full statement from last year on this important bill be included following my remarks, I want to read two excerpts from those remarks:

Global warming is real and it is already happening. Its

effects are being felt across the globe and the longer we

delay, the more severe these effects will be.

He went on to say,

In my final year in the Senate, I have often asked myself,

``What lasting actions can I take to make the world a better

place?'' I hope that by proposing real action on climate

change, and passing the torch to a new generation of those

committed to protecting the environment, that I can help make

a difference for us all.

I couldn't be more honored to carry on Senator Jeffords' vision on behalf of Vermonters and all Americans.

In closing, a country that represents only 6 percent of the world's population but produces 25 percent of its

greenhouse gas emissions, the United States has a moral obligation to lead the way toward reducing these emissions. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must meet that obligation. This legislation will put us on the right path to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007. There are many critically important issues that we face, including education, health care, the growing and inexcusable economic inequality in this country, and the situation in Iraq. Among these issues has to be the threat faced by the earth itself due to global warming and that is why this legislation is the first bill that I am introducing as a U.S. Senator.

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the full text of which I ask be included in the Record following my remarks, was initially introduced last year by the Senator whose seat I currently hold, Senator Jim Jeffords. Jim's leadership in offering a forwardthinking global warming bill is known by all in this chamber and I am honored to continue his efforts by introducing this tremendously-important legislation today.

This bill, is being cosponsored by many of my esteemed colleagues and I would like to recognize them this morning: Senator Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee; the Senior Senator from the great state of Vermont, Mr. Leahy; both Senators from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg and Mr. Menendez; Senators Reed and Whitehouse, both from Rhode Island; the Senate delegation from the State of Hawaii, Senators Inouye and Akaka; and Senator Feingold of Wisconsin and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. I appreciate the support of these colleagues in focusing attention on the most important environmental issue of our time and urge my other colleagues to join in this effort.

I am also proud that the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act has the support of numerous national groups, including the Earth Day Network, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Environmental & Energy Study Institute, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and US PIRG.

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act is based on the scientific evidence and consensus that global warming poses a significant threat to the United States and the world. In fact, with our national security, our economy, our public health and welfare, and our global environment at stake, we must do nothing short of taking bold action. To that end, I am proud that last week the Vermont state legislature began 3 weeks of hearings on global warming. Like Americans across the country, they want action to fight global warming and they wish their Federal Government would step up and provide leadership commensurate with the magnitude of the threat. Well, Mr President this bill answers those pleas for leadership.

Grassroots support for action on global warming is clear. Over 300 mayors have committed their cities to meeting the standards described in the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, with over 54 million citizens represented, the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement provides clear evidence that everyday citizens--unlike some large corporations who have continually misrepresented the science of global warming--want to see movement on this issue. Additionally, a group of northeast States, including Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont, have already implemented a regional effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other northeastern States, such as Maryland and Massachusetts, are likely to join this group soon. And, we all know that the State of California has recognized the need to act on global warming and is moving forward with a tremendous program.

Despite the increasing calls for action, for years, the Bush administration has turned a deaf ear as the scientific community warned us of the problem of global warming and the disastrous impact it will have on our planet. Sadly, many of these predictions are now becoming a reality.

Global concentrations of greenhouse gases are incredibly high. In fact, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has risen to 378 parts per million--a level unseen during anytime over the past 400,000 years. Additionally, on a global scale, 8 of the 10 years between 1996 and the end of 2005 are among the warmest 10 years on record and experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have just logged 2006 as the hottest year on record for the U.S. Also, the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that the majority of the ice caps of the Arctic Ocean will melt by the summer of 2040--decades earlier than previously expected. And, the situation has become so dramatic that the Department of the Interior recently suggested listing polar bears on the endangered species list because their habitat is quite literally disappearing. We are also told to expect changes in agriculture and water systems, new threats to our health, and more extreme weather patterns including more intense hurricanes. All of this is due to global warming caused by the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are released into our atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels.

The good news is that we know how to stop continued global warming-- we simply need the political will to make it happen. The time is now for bold action that will move our country away from fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil towards efficient, sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, bio-mass and hydrogen. The bill I introduce today recognizes the urgency of our circumstances and sets targets for reduction of U.S. emissions to help stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 parts per million, a critical level as recognized by leading climate scientists. More specifically, this legislation calls for an 80 percent decrease-- compared to 1990 levels--in global warming pollutants by 2050 by enacting a combination of mandatory reduction targets and incentives that will help develop clean alternative energies.

The concept is simple. By putting our minds to it, we can usher in a new era of nonpolluting, renewable energy sources. And, what makes this proposal even more exciting is its potential to reshape our economy and make the United States a leader in clean and efficient energy technologies--creating millions of good paying jobs in the process.

In fact, it is a lack of bold vision that will financially cost us. In October of 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, turned the old economic arguments against taking action on climate change on their head. In a report to the British government, he writes that bold action to combat the threat of global warming will in fact save industrial nations money and that inaction could cost between 5 to 20 percent of global gross domestic product. Speaking to the issue in no uncertain terms, the report states, ``If no action is taken we will be faced with the kind of downturn that has not been seen since the great depression and the two world wars.''

To be quite frank, the time for talk is over. It is time for action and introduction of this bill signals my commitment to pushing for such action.

While I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords' full statement from last year on this important bill be included following my remarks, I want to read two excerpts from those remarks:

Global warming is real and it is already happening. Its

effects are being felt across the globe and the longer we

delay, the more severe these effects will be.

He went on to say,

In my final year in the Senate, I have often asked myself,

``What lasting actions can I take to make the world a better

place?'' I hope that by proposing real action on climate

change, and passing the torch to a new generation of those

committed to protecting the environment, that I can help make

a difference for us all.

I couldn't be more honored to carry on Senator Jeffords' vision on behalf of Vermonters and all Americans.

In closing, a country that represents only 6 percent of the world's population but produces 25 percent of its

greenhouse gas emissions, the United States has a moral obligation to lead the way toward reducing these emissions. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must meet that obligation. This legislation will put us on the right path to do so.

I ask unanimous consent that the material be printed in the Record.

Madam President, on this first day of the 110th Congress, I pay tribute to a former Member of this esteemed Chamber. On December 23, 2006, Senator Robert Stafford passed away. This was a tremendous loss for both Vermont and the country. There is no doubt, however, that his accomplishments in many areas will continue to be felt across this great Nation for countless years to come.

A native of Rutland, VT, Senator Stafford was born in 1913. Before representing Vermont in Washington, Bob Stafford spent years serving the people of our State, including as Attorney General. In 1960 he began service as Vermont's single voice in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he remained until 1971, when he became a Member of this hallowed body. During his 17 years in the United States Senate, Senator Stafford was known for his commitment to bipartisanship and congeniality.

Senator Stafford left his mark on our country in more ways than can be mentioned here today. He had an unwavering dedication to making education within reach of all our country's citizens and today, countless Americans--maybe even some of the younger members in this Chamber--have benefited from the Stafford Student Loan program. Additionally, his commitment to the environment and public health was unshakable. Bob Stafford, from his position as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee from 1981 until 1986, worked tirelessly to address both air and water quality issues, even when it meant doing so against the wishes of his own leadership, at the highest levels. His courage on all of these issues, and so many others, will never be forgotten.

Leaving the Senate did not stop Robert Stafford from contributing to the common good. In fact, he remained active at the state level and continued to fight for protection of the environment. I can only hope that I will be as engaged for as long as he was.

To honor Senator Stafford, Senator Leahy and I, along with Representative Welch, introduced a bill today to re-designate the White Rocks National Recreation Area in our fine state as the ``Robert T. Stafford White Rocks National Recreation Area.'' This is a small, but fitting, tribute to his memory.

Bob Stafford was a true public servant. I am humbled to be serving the State of Vermont in the seat he once held. He dedicated his life to serving others and to creating a better world. My thoughts are with his family as they mourn his passing. And may the example he set during his many years be emulated for many to come.