Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Snowe of Maine, the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, when we opened the Senate today, we asked that 10 minutes be divided between Senator Kennedy and Senator Reid. I yield 5 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of Admiral William J. Fallon, USN, to be reappointed in the grade of Admiral and to be Commander, United States Central Command.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider the status of Federal land management agencies' efforts to contain the costs of their wildfire suppression activities and to consider recent independent reviews of and recommendations for those efforts.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on transportation sector fuel efficience, including challenges to and incentives for increased oil savings through technological innovation including plug- in hybrids.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room SD-406.

The Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a Business Meeting to consider the following agenda:

committee funding resolution

The full Committee on Environment and Public Works will conduct a hearing entitled, ``Senators' Perspectives on Global Warming.'' The purpose of the hearing is to hear from each Senator about his or her views on global warming, and what the Senator believes the Nation's response should be to the issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 9:15 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, 2007, at 1 p.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War'' for Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: David J. Barron, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA; Bradford Berenson, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC.; Walter Dellinger, Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law, Former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, Durham, NC; Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Robert F. Turner, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, VA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 30, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing and business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 149 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I said at a meeting with the press earlier today how much I appreciate the Republicans supporting cloture on this minimum wage bill. I hope we are going to have a good bipartisan vote on this bill. There is no question in my mind we will. We have done ethics reform. We are going to do the minimum wage and then move on to something else. I hope we can work on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. President, as you know, we have debate on Iraq coming up when we finish this bill. We are trying to figure out exactly what we are going to be debating because it is a moving target on both sides. We hope to get that done.

I want the record to reflect that I think we are making good progress, and we are doing some legislating. That is very important to the Senate and the country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until Wednesday, January 31, at 9:30 a.m.; that on Wednesday 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 for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the Republicans and the final 30 minutes under the control of Senator Wyden; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill; that all time during the recess on Tuesday and during the adjournment count against the 30-hour postcloture rule.

Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, we are now close to completing action on all germane amendments that are pending to H.R. 2. It is my understanding that Senator Kyl will be here in the morning, and we will resume the bill to debate his amendments. Therefore, Members should be advised to expect rollcall votes tomorrow, and the votes could occur prior to noon.

Does the distinguished Republican leader have anything to say?

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

Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business until 3:30 p.m. today. Senator Dorgan will be recognized for up to 45 minutes and Senator Specter for up to 30 minutes. We will resume H.R. 2 at 3:30 p.m. for debate only until 5:30 p.m. During this time, Senator Sessions will be recognized for an hour at 4 p.m. As a reminder to Members, cloture has been filed on the substitute amendment to H.R. 2. and the bill itself. Therefore, Members have until 3 p.m. today to file any additional first-degree amendments.

Currently, there are 23 amendments pending. I am told that the vast majority of these amendments, after initial review by the Parliamentarians, will be ruled not germane or arguably not germane. The cloture vote on the substitute amendment will occur prior to the conference luncheons tomorrow at 12 noon.

Mr. President, if I may say a few words in addition, today we are going to, hopefully, have a debate that will be meaningful to the American people on minimum wage. This debate will be completed tomorrow in many respects, with a cloture vote on the substitute occurring tomorrow. The other debate we may get to this week is that dealing with Iraq. Both are issues past Congresses have neglected and both are areas where Democrats and Republicans must work together to move America forward.

Minimum Wage

It has been 10 years since the minimum wage was last raised. During that period of time, the cost of food has risen 23 percent, the cost of health care almost 45 percent, the cost of housing about 30 percent, the cost of gas 135 percent, and that is as of today. Of course, as we know, in the past, it has been much more than that. Congressional pay has risen during that period of time by $30,000 per year per Member of Congress. But the minimum wage has stayed the same, $5.15.

Today, a full-time minimum wage worker earns $10,700 a year, working 40 hours a week. That is $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three. This is wrong. It doesn't speak well of our country. At its heart, this debate is about fairness.

In America, we believe--I think we should believe--a person working full time should be able to live a life that is not in poverty. A mother, a father who works hard and plays by the rules should be able to feed, clothe, and raise their children. Isn't it better that we have people who are engaged in work rather than welfare? The answer is yes.

Mr. President, $7.25 might not seem like a lot of money in Washington, but it would mean almost $4,500 more a year for the Nation's working poor. That is enough money for a family of 3 to buy 15 months of groceries, 19 months for their utility bills, 8 months of rent, 2 years of health care, 20 months of childcare, and even 30 months of college tuition at some schools.

Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote on the minimum wage, and I sure hope this will be a good bipartisan vote on cloture, so we can complete this legislation quickly.

Senators have had time to offer amendments. As I said Friday, when is enough enough? After 10 years, it is

time to stop talking about this issue and finally give working Americans an overdue raise.

Iraq

When the Senate completes its work on the minimum wage--whether it is tomorrow, the next day, next day, the next day or next week--we are going to move to Iraq, and that is a debate regarding the proposed plan by the President to escalate the conflict. We owe it to our troops who serve bravely to have a real debate about the way forward in that war.

We are approaching 3,100 dead American soldiers. I was watching the Lehrer ``NewsHour.'' They show, in silence, pictures of the soldiers who have died in Iraq. They do it every few days. I watched this Friday and was struck by the number of women in this most recent reporting of deaths who are pictured there, who have been killed. They were not combat troops. They were doing activities important to the cause, such as driving vehicles. It is hard to determine what is combat and what is not combat. A helicopter went down and women were in that helicopter. A helicopter went down yesterday. I don't know who was in it, but we know two Americans were killed. So we have to have a debate about the way forward in the war in Iraq.

In Washington, we hear a lot of rhetoric about how the upcoming congressional debate emboldens our enemies. To quote a headline that appeared in a lot of newspapers, this particular one was the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, it said: Those who peddle such deceitful, political talking points ``need a lesson in civics.''

As Mr. Warner, the gentleman Senator from Virginia, has said in this debate, Senators are ``trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy.''

Critics of the war also need a lesson in history. If history has taught us anything, it is that our country is strongest when all three branches of Government function. Our country is strongest when this legislative branch is more than a rubberstamp. And, finally, our country is strongest when we have real, meaningful debate on issues of consequence on behalf of the American people.

There is no issue greater in consequence than what is going on in Iraq. To suggest that the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a former Secretary of the Navy, a former marine, Senator John Warner, or highly decorated Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel, who on the battlefields of Vietnam saved his own brother's life, would take any action to undermine our troops and embolden the enemy--of course not--to suggest such is beneath any administration official or Member of Congress, even though they both tried it. I think they should reexamine what they have said. It is dangerous rhetoric, motivated more by politics than events in Iraq.

These two men are examples of this not emboldening the enemy but our doing, as the legislative branch of Government, what we are obligated to do: to talk about this conflict in Iraq.

We are in a hole in Iraq. Escalating the war is deepening that hole. We need to find a way out of that hole. Our troops, most of all, need our help. They need a policy that is worthy of their heroic sacrifices. They don't need hollow speeches or inflammatory rhetoric. They don't need a rubberstamp. They need someone to ask the tough questions. They need a legislative branch that will finally exercise its constitutional responsibilities.

I, for one, am glad we have finally arrived at this point where Congress is exercising its power. We arrived here because the American people demanded we exercise our power.

In his State of the Union Address, the President asked Members of Congress to give escalation a chance. But the truth is, escalation is the same failed President Bush policy that has already run out of chances. The President has escalated the war before, only to see the same results: increasing chaos, innumerable costs, and a civil war that is spinning out of control.

Is there a war in Iraq that is civil in nature? Of course. A marketplace where people came to buy pets, to sell pets was blown to smithereens, snakes crawling away from their cages. Children taking tests were hit with a mortar round over the weekend. And 600 insurgents were gathered in an orchard where a battle that took 15 hours ensued over the weekend. Is there a civil war? Of course, there is a civil war. Is there chaos in Iraq? Of course, there is chaos in Iraq.

The President knows how the American people feel. Generals Abizaid and Casey, when asked whether this escalation would be a good idea, told the President ``no.'' They were relieved of duty. Prime Minister Maliki, speaking face to face with the President, said: Mr. President, get American troops out of Baghdad. That is what the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq told the President of the United States. The Iraq Study Group has so told the President. And now we are going to have a bipartisan vote that will tell the President the same.

There is no military solution in Iraq; there are only political solutions in Iraq. With the vote, which will eventually come, we will give the President another chance to listen, listen to the generals, listen to the Iraq Study Group, listen to the American people, and listen to a bipartisan Congress.

The stunning part of this is the people of Iraq don't want us there. Polls show that 70 percent of the Iraqis believe Iraq would be better off if we were out of there. So it is another chance to listen and change course. That is what we hope will be the outcome of our debate. That will be the right result for the Nation, for our strategic interests, and for the troops.

We will work with my distinguished friend, the Republican leader, to try to have something that is more understandable. The way things now stand, if cloture is invoked tomorrow, this matter can be played out, as I understand the procedures here, until about 1 o'clock Friday morning and, if necessary, we will do that. But hopefully we can agree on a way to proceed through this without those many votes and arrive at a point where we can come to some agreement as to how we should proceed in a reasonable, logical way, so everyone has their opportunity to express views on Iraq. We have a number of competing legislative matters we can vote on. It would seem to me very likely it will take 60 votes to pass anything, but at least if we set up a responsible way to go forward, I think it would be more meaningful to the body and to the American people.

I know my friend, the Republican leader, will work with me. We will try to do the best we can for the body itself; otherwise, we will work through the rules of the Senate, which will get us there but maybe not as quickly and as conveniently.

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 for the transaction of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.