Floor Statements

Mr. President, 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, we will be in a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes. The first half is under the control of the Republicans, the second half under the control of Senator Wyden. Following morning business, we will resume H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill.

As I indicated in closing yesterday, we expect Senator Kyl to be here this morning when we resume the bill. I understand a number of conversations have taken place among Senators Baucus, Grassley, Kyl, and Kennedy regarding these amendments. It is anticipated once we are back on the bill there will be debate with respect to one or more of the Kyl amendments and that a vote in relation to an amendment could occur sometime around noon today.

Once we have completed action on all the amendments, then it is my hope that we can yield back all the time postcloture and then dispose of the substitute amendment. If we have to run the full 30 hours on the substitute, I think I am correct in stating that the 30 hours would expire at about 6:40 this evening, cloture having been invoked yesterday at about 12:40 p.m. Of course, once all that time has expired or been yielded back and the substitute has been disposed of, cloture on the bill would occur immediately and automatically.

Mr. President, just a couple of comments. When we complete the debate on minimum wage and the bill is completed, we move to Iraq, and that is, as we know, a very contentious issue. But as the distinguished Republican leader last night stated, we are trying to arrive at a point where we can have a good, strong debate. It will take cooperation, it will take compromise so we can be in a position to have this debate so all Senators can voice their opinion and, hopefully, we can settle on a finite number of pieces of legislation to vote on. That is my goal, and I hope we can do that. Certainly the American people deserve this debate.

(The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 439 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I apologize to my friend for taking so much time, but sometimes one takes what time is needed.

One final point, Mr. President. We should understand, all of us, that we may have to have a vote or some votes on Monday. Everyone should understand that. And if we have to have votes on Monday, they could occur earlier rather than later. So everyone should understand there may be Monday votes. We hope not. As I told the distinguished Republican leader and as we have announced on a number of occasions, we had our retreat, and the Republicans certainly cooperated with us, and we are going to cooperate with them. These retreats are extremely important to this body. They allow us to enhance the political parties within this great Senate and focus on what is good for the country. We have done that, and the Republicans are going to do that the day after tomorrow, and I think that is important. We will certainly have no votes on Friday.

Mr. President, before the vote is called, I wish to alert everyone here that the distinguished Republican leader and I are negotiating, trying to work something out on Iraq, which is the next issue we will go to when we finish this bill, which will be tomorrow sometime. It is very possible we are going to have a vote Monday at noon on the Iraq issue--everyone should understand that--Monday at noon. We hope that be can avoided, but we may not be able to avoid it. The Republican leader and I are doing our best to work something out. We have had a number of meetings, and we will continue to do that throughout the day.

Cloture Motion

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

Madam President, I have already apologized to staff and others for having to wait around so long, but sometimes it takes a long time to get from here to there.

I, first of all, want to acknowledge the hard work of so many different people that allowed us to get where we are today, which certainly isn't the finish line, but it is a starting point.

People have heard me on other occasions, on other matters, talk about the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. In my 25 years in the Congress-- and I say this without any reservation--I have not had dealings with anyone who better represents, in my mind, what a Senator should be. Not only does he look the part and act the part, but he is truly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about this deliberative body.

So I appreciate very much the bipartisan work of the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. He has worked with other Senators--I don't know who he has worked with, but some I am aware of because I have read about them: Senators Collins, Hagel, Ben Nelson, Snowe, Biden, Coleman, and I am sure there are others.

Today Senator Warner and others submitted a new version of his concurrent resolution regarding the increase of troop levels in Iraq. Senator Levin has taken that language, and tonight we will introduce it as a bill. It will be introduced as a bill because that is the only way we can arrive at a point where we can start a deliberate debate on this most important issue. We will introduce this as a bill which will begin the rule XIV process in order to get it to the calendar and allow the Senate to move to Senator Warner's legislation. We would prefer to do it as a concurrent resolution; however, that would only be the case if it would be open to complete substitute amendments, for obvious reasons.

In order to permit the Senate to consider amendments which are appropriate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senator Warner's concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 7, on Monday, February 5, at 12 noon, and that the entire concurrent resolution be open to amendments and that a cloture motion with respect to S. Con. Res. 2 be vitiated.

A motion to invoke cloture was filed on that. After we complete work on the minimum wage bill, automatically we will vote on that. I say to my distinguished friend, cloture will not be invoked on that. What I would like is unanimous consent that we not have to vote cloture, that we just vitiate that vote and move to the Warner resolution and do that Monday. But, as I know, the distinguished Republican leader has only seen what I have given him, the last little bit, not because I didn't want to give it to him but I didn't have it. I certainly want

the leader to think about this during the night. I think it would be an expeditious way to get to this.

It has taken a lot of time. I haven't been involved in any of the negotiations. It was tempting, but I thought I would do more harm than good. I haven't been involved in any of the negotiations with the Senators whom I have mentioned here. I think it would be to the best interests of the Senate, majority and minority, to start Monday, as I have suggested, and allow Senators--I will say, at a subsequent time, when the distinguished Republican leader yields the floor, I am going to say that I want to work with the Republican leader in setting up a process for making sure people have the ability to offer reasonable amendments to this S. Con. Res. 7. That is my feeling. That is where we are with the Biden-Hagel-Snowe-Levin resolution that is before the Senate, or will be.

I will work with the Republican leader to take any suggestion the Republican leader would have as to how we can begin a debate. I would say in response to the statement, the reason I didn't put the Biden-Hagel matter in a rule XIV posture is that is not what we want to start debate on. There is a bipartisan group of Senators who believe the more appropriate matter is the Warner amendment. I don't know what happened in your caucus yesterday. In my caucus, there was near unanimity for the Warner resolution.

I will yield to the Senator from Virginia, just making one brief statement. I hope we can still do that. We still would like to do that. I think this will be, as I said, a good place to start. I also want the record to reflect tonight that the mere fact that this is in bill form is as a result of meeting the very stringent rules of the Senate to get it to the floor so we can have a vote on this matter on Monday; that at any time we would agree to take this not being bill language and would be strictly a concurrent resolution language. We can do that anytime. The reasons for that are quite obvious. We don't want this--a concurrent resolution, the President doesn't have to sign it, whatever happens on it. We will be happy to work on that, too.

I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, if we can't get such consent, then we will have to have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Senator Levin's bill on Monday at 12 noon. As for consideration of an amendment, as I stated in our colloquy, and I state now to the Chair, we will work with the Republican leader on an orderly process. He is an experienced legislator, as we all are, working on this bill. The problem we have is a narrow window of time because of the absolute requirement--absolute requirement to finish the continuing appropriations resolution by February 15 to avoid a total closure of the Federal Government--a total closure of the Federal Government. There would be more time to debate amendments, and I know the distinguished Republican leader is looking at this legislation tonight.

We didn't have to go through the cloture process on the motion to proceed to Senator Warner's legislation. We simply want the Senate's will for the American people. I know that is what the minority wants, that is what the majority wants, and we have to figure out a process to do that. I am open to suggestions, but all I know, as I have told my two friends, there is no other way to get to the Warner resolution than how we have done it tonight. If during the night we can work out something to move forward to a debate starting Monday, I think it would be to the betterment of the Senate and the American people.

I repeat: It is done in bill form for the simple reason it is the only way to get it to the floor. I repeat now for the second time in front of the American people, at any time, either by unanimous consent or by a vote of the Democratic caucus, joining in with, I am sure, many Republicans, we will strip that language so it doesn't have to go to the President. We want this to be a resolution. This is something that is business within the family, the congressional family. The President doesn't have to be involved in this--only indirectly.

Mr. President, we are going to have a debate on Iraq, and it will be a historic debate about that war, a war that has demanded unparalleled sacrifices from our men and women in uniform.

While we have our disagreements with the President's conduct of the war, all 100 Senators stand side by side in supporting our troops. They have done everything asked of them, carrying out a difficult mission with honor and skill. We as a country owe the brave men and women in our military a debt of gratitude and have responsibility to ensure our veterans receive both the thanks of a grateful nation and the benefits they have earned,

and that is a subject I would like to discuss briefly this morning.

About 8 years ago, one of my staff came to me and said: Senator, do you realize that if a person is disabled in the military and retires from the military, they cannot draw on both their benefits? I said: What? And he repeated that. If you are in the military and you become disabled and you retire, you cannot draw both your benefits. I thought my staffer didn't know what he was talking about, but he did. That was the law in our country and had been for many years, and it was a wrong law. That law is still mostly in effect, and that is too bad.

When someone who is disabled retires from the U.S. military, he or she cannot draw on both their benefits. If you retire from any other branch of the Federal Government, such as the Bureau of Land Management, you can draw both your disability pay and your retirement pay but, no, not if you are in the military. These people have been robbed of their benefits, in my opinion, and I refer specifically to thousands of men and women who have been denied their retirement because of an unfair policy referred to as concurrent receipt.

By law, disabled veterans, as I have said, cannot collect disability pay and retirement pay at the same time. What does this mean? It means for every dollar of compensation a disabled veteran receives as a result of their injuries, they must sacrifice a dollar of their retirement pay they earned in the service of our Nation. In many cases, this ban takes away a veteran's full retirement pay, wiping away the benefits he or she earned in 20 or more years of service. That is wrong.

Concurrent receipt is a special tax on the men and women who keep us safe. Few veterans can afford to live on their retirement pay alone. Those burdened with disability face an even greater struggle, often denied any postservice work. They receive disability compensation to pay for pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings caused by a service-connected illness or injury. No other Federal retiree is forced to make forfeit of their retirement--only our disabled military retirees. This is not just an error, it is a disgrace.

Of course, concurrent receipt is not a new problem. I hope most everyone in the Senate knows about it. This is the seventh year I have introduced legislation to give disabled veterans the support they have earned, and I will continue fighting until we succeed, ending this unacceptable policy.

I first of all want to suggest that the two managers of the Defense bill, every year since I have worked on this, have been Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and they have helped me. I appreciate that very much. They have been thoughtful and understanding in their approach to this issue. What has happened these past 7 years is good but not really good. We have chipped away at this unfair policy of concurrent receipt.

In 2000, I introduced legislation to eliminate this unfair policy for the first time. I did it at the end of the 106th Congress. This legislation passed the Senate but was removed by the House during conference. So I reintroduced the legislation in the 107th Congress, in both 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, it was once again adopted by the Senate but removed in conference.

In 2003, I proposed legislation to allow disabled veterans with at least a 50-percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt over a 10-year phase-in period. Despite veto threats from the Bush administration, Congress passed this very important version of concurrent receipt.

In 2004, I took it a step further. I introduced legislation to eliminate the 10-year phase-in period for veterans with a 100-percent disability. The motivation here was to get concurrent receipt to the most severely disabled veterans. We thought many of these veterans would never see the benefits with a 10-year phase-in. They are old World War II veterans, where the average age is well over 80 now, and to think they would have to wait 10 years for a phase-in isn't very fair.

In 2005, we focused on the most severely disabled veterans and successfully eliminated the 10-year phase-in for veterans listed as unemployable. I was pleased with the passage of that 2005 amendment but disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this valuable legislation for veterans rated as unemployable until 2009. So in 2006, I sought to get unemployable veterans immediate relief, but we didn't act. Congress didn't act.

So here we are in 2007, back at it again. Today, concurrent receipt remains one of my highest priorities. It is a priority, I believe, in fairness. We need to continue to chip away at this policy, and I am committed to that goal 100 percent, so that 100 percent of disabled veterans get the money they earn in being part of the great fighting force of this Nation.

We are blessed in this country to be defended by an All-Volunteer Army. These patriots put their lives and safety on the line because they love this country. I believe it is time for this country and this Congress to repay their service and sacrifice, and that is why I am reintroducing today the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to resolve a Nevada water rights matter that has lasted more than a decade.

This bill, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act, would ratify an agreement reached last fall by the State of Nevada, the Tribes, many individual water users, and the United States. I am pleased that the parties came together, asserted their interests, made compromises, and reached an agreement. Each party had different--and frequently conflicting--water claims, water needs, and ideas on water use and conservation. I appreciate the parties' hard work and their commitment to end expensive litigation to reach an agreement that will permanently resolve the water rights matters along the East Fork of the Owyhee River. This bill, if enacted, will ratify the agreement reached by the parties.

The primary purpose of this bill is to approve, ratify and confirm the agreement that addresses the Tribes' water rights, the rights of upstream water users, and the implementation of a plan for the parties to exercise their water rights.

The Agreement quantifies the Tribes' surface water rights and groundwater claims in Nevada. The Tribes will establish a water code and administer the quantified rights on the Reservation accordingly.

The Agreement also states that the water rights of the upstream water users who live off the Reservation will be determined and administered by the State Engineer. Under the settlement, the parties have agreed to a limitation on the number of acres that can be irrigated by the upstream water users.

The settlement's implementation plan describes how the rights of the respective parties will be administered and disputes will be resolved. It describes that the surface water basin will be closed, and provides that a groundwater basin will be declared a basin in need of additional administration under state law. The agreement further addresses operation of the system particularly during times of shortage. Under this part of the plan, upstream water users gain a small amount of water storage in the Wild Horse Reservoir.

The second purpose of this bill is to settle the Tribes' long- standing claims against the United States for damages caused by the Bureau of Reclamation's Duck Valley Irrigation Project, related Bureau of Indian Affairs projects, and the mismanagement of tribal resources, particularly the destruction of the Tribe's salmon and steelhead trout fishing stock.

The Shoshone-Paiutes have a long history in Nevada and Idaho. The Tribes roamed the region well before the Duck Valley Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1877. The Reservation today encompasses approximately 290,000 acres of land held in trust by the federal government for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.

The Reservation draws water from three primary sources: 1. the East Fork of the Owyhee River that flows through the Reservation from south to north from the Nevada side; 2. Blue Creek, a tributary to the Owyhee that flows north to south through the Reservation until it meets the Owyhee on the Idaho side of the Reservation; and 3. Mary's Creek, located in the northeastern part of the Reservation, flowing northeasterly through the Reservation and into Idaho.

When the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project was initiated in the 1930s, the project placed over 12,000 acres of land under irrigation. Like many Indian water projects, the Project was only partially completed and never fully funded, which accounted for the Projects' disrepair, resulted in reduced storage capacity, and an inability to reach the goal of maximizing the acres in production.

With the construction of the Bureau of Reclamation's Owyhee Irrigation Project Dam in the 1930s, the Tribes' salmon runs were destroyed.

The affects of these federal projects on the Tribes' resources and culture and the Federal Government's failure to protect tribal water rights require places the United States in the position of compensating the Tribes for their loss. The Tribes value the loss to their resources and culture at level much higher than what Senator Ensign and I propose. While the United States can never fully compensate the Tribes for their loss, I appreciate the Tribes' willingness to accept the settlement figure and put an end to this painful part of our sovereign- to-sovereign relationship.

The bill, if enacted, would authorize two settlement funds--a development fund and a maintenance fund.

The development fund, to be authorized at $45 million over 5 fiscal years, would fund tribal water development projects. After careful research and consultation with its members and advisors, the Tribes have identified many projects to increase their economic opportunities. The Tribes are preparing to rehabilitate the dilapidated Duck Valley Irrigation Project, increase the amount of irrigable lands in agricultural production, develop a Wildlife Habitat Project, and undertake other economic development projects to enhance the Reservation economy and contribute to the permanent homeland purpose of the Duck Valley Reservation.

The maintenance fund, authorized at $15 million over 5 fiscal years, would fund the refurbishment and maintenance of the Reservation's water infrastructure.

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act is important legislation. It reflects the compromises of our constituents who worked hard to reach agreement on matters that affect their livelihoods and cultures. I believe this bill benefit the Tribes, the ranchers and upstream water users, and those residents in the northern Nevada and southern Idaho region.

I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure timely review and passage of this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are going to have a debate on Iraq, and it will be a historic debate about that war, a war that has demanded unparalleled sacrifices from our men and women in uniform.

While we have our disagreements with the President's conduct of the war, all 100 Senators stand side by side in supporting our troops. They have done everything asked of them, carrying out a difficult mission with honor and skill. We as a country owe the brave men and women in our military a debt of gratitude and have responsibility to ensure our veterans receive both the thanks of a grateful nation and the benefits they have earned,

and that is a subject I would like to discuss briefly this morning.

About 8 years ago, one of my staff came to me and said: Senator, do you realize that if a person is disabled in the military and retires from the military, they cannot draw on both their benefits? I said: What? And he repeated that. If you are in the military and you become disabled and you retire, you cannot draw both your benefits. I thought my staffer didn't know what he was talking about, but he did. That was the law in our country and had been for many years, and it was a wrong law. That law is still mostly in effect, and that is too bad.

When someone who is disabled retires from the U.S. military, he or she cannot draw on both their benefits. If you retire from any other branch of the Federal Government, such as the Bureau of Land Management, you can draw both your disability pay and your retirement pay but, no, not if you are in the military. These people have been robbed of their benefits, in my opinion, and I refer specifically to thousands of men and women who have been denied their retirement because of an unfair policy referred to as concurrent receipt.

By law, disabled veterans, as I have said, cannot collect disability pay and retirement pay at the same time. What does this mean? It means for every dollar of compensation a disabled veteran receives as a result of their injuries, they must sacrifice a dollar of their retirement pay they earned in the service of our Nation. In many cases, this ban takes away a veteran's full retirement pay, wiping away the benefits he or she earned in 20 or more years of service. That is wrong.

Concurrent receipt is a special tax on the men and women who keep us safe. Few veterans can afford to live on their retirement pay alone. Those burdened with disability face an even greater struggle, often denied any postservice work. They receive disability compensation to pay for pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings caused by a service-connected illness or injury. No other Federal retiree is forced to make forfeit of their retirement--only our disabled military retirees. This is not just an error, it is a disgrace.

Of course, concurrent receipt is not a new problem. I hope most everyone in the Senate knows about it. This is the seventh year I have introduced legislation to give disabled veterans the support they have earned, and I will continue fighting until we succeed, ending this unacceptable policy.

I first of all want to suggest that the two managers of the Defense bill, every year since I have worked on this, have been Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and they have helped me. I appreciate that very much. They have been thoughtful and understanding in their approach to this issue. What has happened these past 7 years is good but not really good. We have chipped away at this unfair policy of concurrent receipt.

In 2000, I introduced legislation to eliminate this unfair policy for the first time. I did it at the end of the 106th Congress. This legislation passed the Senate but was removed by the House during conference. So I reintroduced the legislation in the 107th Congress, in both 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, it was once again adopted by the Senate but removed in conference.

In 2003, I proposed legislation to allow disabled veterans with at least a 50-percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt over a 10-year phase-in period. Despite veto threats from the Bush administration, Congress passed this very important version of concurrent receipt.

In 2004, I took it a step further. I introduced legislation to eliminate the 10-year phase-in period for veterans with a 100-percent disability. The motivation here was to get concurrent receipt to the most severely disabled veterans. We thought many of these veterans would never see the benefits with a 10-year phase-in. They are old World War II veterans, where the average age is well over 80 now, and to think they would have to wait 10 years for a phase-in isn't very fair.

In 2005, we focused on the most severely disabled veterans and successfully eliminated the 10-year phase-in for veterans listed as unemployable. I was pleased with the passage of that 2005 amendment but disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this valuable legislation for veterans rated as unemployable until 2009. So in 2006, I sought to get unemployable veterans immediate relief, but we didn't act. Congress didn't act.

So here we are in 2007, back at it again. Today, concurrent receipt remains one of my highest priorities. It is a priority, I believe, in fairness. We need to continue to chip away at this policy, and I am committed to that goal 100 percent, so that 100 percent of disabled veterans get the money they earn in being part of the great fighting force of this Nation.

We are blessed in this country to be defended by an All-Volunteer Army. These patriots put their lives and safety on the line because they love this country. I believe it is time for this country and this Congress to repay their service and sacrifice, and that is why I am reintroducing today the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if I could now move to the more mundane, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:45 tomorrow, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 8 through 10; that there be 10 minutes for debate on the nominations equally divided between Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees; that at the conclusion of the yielding back of time, the Senate vote on nomination No. 8, Lawrence Joseph O'Neill to be a U.S. district judge; that following that vote, the Senate vote on nomination No. 9, Valerie Baker, to be a U.S. district judge; that following that vote, the Senate vote on nomination No. 10, Gregory Frizzell, to be a U.S. district judge; that there be 2 minutes for debate between the votes; that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that the Senate then return to legislative session, and that all time consumed in executive session, including the votes, count toward cloture on H.R. 2.

I would say, before the Chair rules on this unanimous consent request, how much we can count on staff. One number was missing, and I am just here trying to figure out what to do without staff, and as usual, they come through.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 61.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 62.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider by laid upon the table

Mr. President, I understand that H.J. Res. 20 has been received from the House and is now at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, this is the continuing resolution, which is so important to continuing the functions of this Government, but I am objecting to my own request for its second reading.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that S. 470, introduced by Senator Levin, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading but object to my own request.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, February 1; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 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 11:45 a.m., 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 next 30 minutes under the control of the majority; that following morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session as under the previous order; that upon resuming legislative session, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill; that all time during the adjournment and morning business count against the postcloture time.

Mr. President, today, the Senate has completed the amendment process on H.R. 2, and the Senate also invoked cloture on the bill by a vote of 88 to 8. Tomorrow, we will anticipate concluding action on the bill in the afternoon. Once the bill has been completed, there will then be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 2, the bipartisan Iraq resolution, unless we work something out, as we expressed here at some length tonight.

To remind Members, we will be voting tomorrow prior to noon on three judicial nominations. Those votes are expected to begin at about 11:55 a.m.