Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my speech and the speech of the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, that Senator Cornyn be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 541 which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and be joined by my fellow Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, in recognition of the 125th anniversary of Spelman College.

Spelman College is a historically Black college in the State of Georgia and a part of the Atlanta University complex which is the largest consortium of historically Black universities and colleges in the United States of America.

The resolution congratulates the student body, the faculty, the founders, and in particular Dr. Beverly Daniel

Tatum, and the administration, the faculty, and staff of Spelman College.

Spelman College was founded in Atlanta, GA, 1881 by Baptist missionaries and teachers Sophia B. Packard and Harriet E. Giles for the purpose of educating African-American women and girls.

Due to the benevolence of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.--Senator Rockefeller's great-grandfather--and Laura Spelman Rockefeller, the name of the institution was changed from Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary to Spelman Seminary in honor of the Spelman family.

A Rockefeller has since sat on the Spelman College Board of Trustees, including Senator Rockefeller's daughter, Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, who currently sits on the Board of Trustees.

Spelman later expanded its curriculum to include high school and college classes, and conferred its first high school degree in 1887, and its first college degree in 1901.

In 1924 Spelman Seminary became Spelman College and grew to become a leading undergraduate institution for African-American women.

Spelman is ranked among the top 75 best liberal arts college according to U.S. News and World Report, 2005 edition.

The Association of Medical Colleges ranks Spelman fifth among undergraduate programs for African-American students accepted to medical school; and not surprisingly Spelman is one of six institutions designated by the National Science Foundation and NASA as a Model Institution for Excellence in undergraduate science and math.

The resolution also commends Dr. Tatum for her excellent work and vision of the future for the college. It further calls attention to her initiation of a strategic plan for Spelman called ``Spelman ALIVE'' that includes five goals designated to create a vision of Spelman of academic, community, and professional achievement: academic excellence, leadership development, improving the infrastructure, visibility of accomplishments of the campus community, and exemplary customer service.

It is both an honor and privilege for me today on behalf of the State of Georgia and I think the Senate to unanimously commend Spelman College on its achievement of 125 continuous years of service to African-American women in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise as a Senator from Georgia to express my support and join a unanimous Senate in support for extension of the Voting Rights Act. I come to the well to speak from a different perspective than some. I was born in the South in 1944, educated in its public schools in the 1950s and 1960s. I was in the fourth grade when Brown v. Board of Education was the ruling of the Supreme Court. I was in high school when the public schools of Atlanta were integrated. I went to the University of Georgia when the first students integrated that institution. I lived through all the changes that many refer to as history about which they have read.

I lived through it, being there and seeing the heroes and the challenges and the transition through which the South has gone. Still, in speeches today we hear very often about the South in historic times, where wrong practices have been righted, but somehow we don't hear about the heroes who made the Voting Rights Act go from a piece of paper and a law to practical reality in the South.

I am proud of so many citizens in Georgia, Black and White, urban and rural, Republican and Democrat, who over the past 41 years have made not only the letter of that law but the spirit of that law the spirit of our State--not the least of whom is Congressman John Lewis, a man of unquestioned character and, for anyone who lived during the 1960s and 1950s, unquestioned courage. He and I are of different races and different political persuasions, but he is a man whose courage and conviction I honor and pay tribute to.

Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr., was a White mayor of Atlanta in the 1960s whose actions would see to it that the actions passed in Congress were made a reality smoothly in the city, which gained the reputation of a city too busy to hate. We made a transition in a difficult time. We righted difficult wrongs. We made the letter of the law the spirit of the law.

Andrew Young, the first African-American mayor of Atlanta, in following Sam Massell, who followed Ivan Allen, ensured that those transitions continued in the 1980s, and that voting rights and all rights were the primary responsibility of our government and its leadership.

Carl Sanders, the Governor of Georgia, probably lost his chance at a second term because of his courageous stance on behalf of seeing to it that the South continued to make progress.

Joe Frank Harris, from rural Georgia, who was Governor in the 1980s, continued in tandem with Andrew Young to see to it that our capital city and State remained committed to all of the provisions of equality in our society.

The attorneys general in this issue are so important. Republican Mike Bowers, during many years of service to our State as attorney general, time and again saw to it that what was intended by the Voting Rights Act was the practice in our State.

Our current attorney general today, an African American, Thurbert Baker, is a tribute to the progress our State has made and is an outspoken defender of the Voting Rights Act and our State's intention to ensure that all of Georgia's legal residents, regardless of race or ethnicity, have the right to vote.

A great Senator, Sam Nunn, served in this Senate, whose office I hold now downstairs. Sam Nunn, during the years of the 1970s and 1980s and early 1990s, was a steadfast beacon of support for ensuring that we continued the spirit and the letter of the Voting Rights Act.

The late Senator Paul Coverdell, a Republican from Georgia, in his term in the Georgia legislature in the House and Senate, over 20 years of service, fought tirelessly to ensure that our State delivered on the guarantee of the right to vote for all Georgians.

As we reflect on the true wrongs that existed in the 1950s and 1960s, and where those wrongs may have taken place, we owe it to history and to the credit of these great individuals to pay tribute to those who took the law and made it a reality. I am proud of my State. I am proud of the transition it has made. I pay tribute to its leaders.

My vote today in favor of the extension of the Voting Rights Act is in equal parts a commitment to that end and a tribute to those Georgians who made the Voting Rights Act a reality in my State.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators for their courtesy. I thank Senator Hatch from Utah and his committee for incorporating in this very important bill provisions known as Masha's law. I was privileged to join, as an original cosponsor, with Senator Kerry on Masha's law.

Masha is a young lady who, at an early age in Russia, was adopted by an American citizen who became her custodian. He brought her to the United States and, systematically and over a protracted period of time, abused her and put her photographs over the Internet in enormous numbers. Masha, fortunately, after a sustained period of time, was able to escape his custody. A case was filed against him. He was indicted and convicted and today is incarcerated in Massachusetts.

Masha is, fortunately, now living in a loving home in Georgia and has a wonderful mother who is truly an angel of adoption in every way.

In researching this case, we found that young Masha, and many others like her who have been abused in their lives, could not even recover under the laws as they existed. What Masha's law does, and what is incorporated in here, is it changes ``any minor'' to ``any person,'' so that if a minor is depicted in photographs pornographically that are distributed over the Internet, but by the time the abuser is caught, the minor is an adult, they can still recover. They cannot now, and that is ridiculous. It makes sure that recovery on the part of a minor can take place when they become an adult, whether or not the guilty person is incarcerated. It raises from $50,000 to $150,000 the penalty for which that individual can be recompensated if, in fact, someone who depicts that picture and puts it on the Internet and uses them is caught and convicted. That compensation is to be paid to the individual.

Although I don't think there is any price too high to cost an individual who would take advantage of a minor, I think it is only appropriate to triple that penalty and make sure that reaching the age of adulthood does not exempt someone from recovery. It is a tribute to continuing to do what this bill does, and that is look after the protection of minors and ensure that those who violate them are caught and punished and have to pay to the maximum extent.

I thank the Senator from Utah for allowing me the time, and I thank the Senators from North Dakota and Virginia as well.

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

Mr. President, I rise to take advantage of the time assigned or allotted for all of us to discuss what is obviously a passionate, controversial, and important issue. But I rise to talk about it from, probably, a different perspective than some of the other speeches--at least those I have heard. I want to talk prospectively, about what happens after this debate is over.

If all the predictions come true, at the end of the day we will not debate stem cells for the rest of this year because the agreement to bring it to the floor was that we come to the floor, we debate these three bills, and the debate would be over for the year.

The debate will not be over. In fact, if anything, this is probably the beginning of a long debate as we deal with the ethics and the morality and the hope and the promise of science as it relates to stem cells--in particular, embryonic stem cells.

When the President issued his order in August of 2001, I supported it because it invested in embryonic stem cell research and it clearly drew the line in terms of how far we would go. I have been supportive of the President's policies on embryonic stem cell research since.

When H.R. 810 passed, I began to do what I think all of us should do. I began to get educated as best I could on this controversial and important issue. Dr. Michael Johns at Emory University helped me. Dr. Steven Stice, at the University of Georgia, helped me. I sat through more than a few demonstrations--not sales presentations but demonstrations of programs and efforts in embryonic stem cell research underway, under NIH guidelines, and were moving forward.

I learned a lot. I learned this promise of embryonic stem cells was uncovered or identified in 1998. Research has been done for 8 years. They hold great promise. Adult stem cells have been around longer and have demonstrated promise beyond what embryonic has today, but that is because of the time and the amount of money that has been invested.

But I learned one thing. I am not smart enough to know what the end result of all this research will be, but I am smart enough to know that our country must continue to be a player in the research. Everywhere NIH is involved, you have standards, you have ethics, you have procedures, and you have protocols. It is very important that all those exist in such a delicate and important type of research. We must be respectful of human life.

The proposal in H.R. 810 that is of concern is that it involves the destruction of an embryo that, if implanted, could become a human being. That is a legitimate concern for us as a country to have.

When Senator Frist began fielding inquiries with regard to this issue, months ago, after H.R. 810 passed the House, I engaged myself as I was in this learning process in hopes of finding a prospect where we could match the standards of ethics we all want and also invest in the hope for the future. I believed that there was a way--in fact, there is a way--that we could invest in embryonic stem cell research without involving the destruction of an embryo that could be transferable to the womb and become a fetus.

For a second, I wish to discuss that on the floor simply, if nothing else, to point out that there are many opportunities of hope out there that meet both the ethical and the moral as well as the scientific desire that I think a consensus of this body has.

Dr. Steven Stice is a noted researcher at the University of Georgia. I had the privilege of meeting him last year. I have three times been to his clinic at the university. Dr. Steven Stice is a man who understands the concern over the ethics of the destruction of a viable embryo. So in the development of embryonic lines BG01, 2, and 3, which were developed prior to August of 2001 and are in operation at the University of Georgia today, those stem cell lines were derived from the byproducts of in vitro fertilization that could not be implanted and could not be frozen.

My point to you, the Presiding Officer, and the ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, is this: There are three lines that exist today that were derived from the byproducts of in vitro fertilization that could not be implanted in the womb and become a fetus or be frozen for subsequent implantation. Under the Guarder et al. principles in the grading of material in in vitro fertilization, there is a clear line of that which is viable, that which can be frozen, and that which cannot. It doesn't involve the discarding of anything that can be viable, but it does lend hope that from sources other than the viable embryos, stem cells can be derived.

I respect human life and I want us, as a nation, to always be respectful and never disrespectful of it and its potential. I also respect the wonder of science in innovation and the great discoveries that it has brought. I stand here today believing that you can do both and that as we move forward, beyond this debate, beyond a veto if it takes place--whatever the fire and substance is--we should start tomorrow looking at these other alternatives. Just in the 18 months since this issue began to bubble up in the Senate, there have been breakthroughs, such as single cell extraction from embryos without the destruction of the embryo--something that holds great promise for those cells to actually replicate themselves into stem cells.

We can do it. It is important that we stay on course to do it. But it is important that we not break the ethical principles to which we are committed and always be respectful of life.

In the course of the negotiations with the leader--and I want to inject something here with regard to Majority Leader Frist. I don't know anybody who has ever been dealt a tougher hand in terms of coming to a resolution of these issues. I thank him for the amount of input he let me have. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in being a part of the final debate, in terms of what I just described, in terms of the stem cell lines they are operating on at the University of Georgia, but I think under the circumstances he did the best he could.

Sincerely I stand here as a Member of the Senate with 4 years remaining in my term, knowing that we will revisit this issue time and again. As science changes and moves forward, there will be ways we can embrace, ethically and rightfully, research that holds hope and promise for those who suffer and those who are afflicted.

My last comment is this. I was a real estate broker in my private life, before I came to Congress. I am not a doctor and I am not a scientist. I have heard some declaratory statements on the floor about what research will and will not prove in the future. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. You do research to determine what you are going to find out, not just to predict what it will or will not do.

As we go through this difficult, tenuous debate over a subject of immense

importance to the American people, let's look for ways that we can be respectful of human life and open the doors for the furtherance of development in science in embryonic stem cells. I submit there are ways to do both, and I will be here to work with the leader, with my colleagues, and with our President to unlock those doors so that promise and hope exists and we never breach the ethical divide that caused the debate today.

I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for a moment I wanted to address the subject of immigration before we leave for the weekend.

About 2 months ago, I offered an amendment to the Senate immigration bill which at the time was referred to as a deal-breaker. I want to suggest that it is now being referred to as a deal-maker. I wish to offer some suggestions constructively for the Senate to consider and others who are involved in this debate.

I want to repeat, for the benefit of everyone, what the amendment I offered and the distinguished Presiding Officer supported, as well as many other Members of the Senate--not enough but almost enough--simply said: That no program contained in the act that granted legal status to someone who was in America illegally could take effect until the Secretary of Homeland Security certified that all of the border security measures proposed in the act in title I and section 233 of title II were in force, funded, and operational.

It has become known as a trigger because it said that any guest worker program or any other reform that took place could only take place after we had done the job the American people suggested we should do.

A lot of people said: We can't secure our border. If we can transplant hearts and fly to the Moon, we can secure our border. What we have needed is resolve. I have been pleased to see just this week countless articles in countless newspapers where all of the players in the debate, from the White House to the Senate, the House of Representatives, have now opened themselves to discuss a trigger in the immigration reform bill to ensure that when we have immigration reform, it is truly comprehensive because I would suggest to them that in the absence of border security, there can be no comprehensive reform.

Only when people know that the door is closed will they cooperate with not only the spirit but the letter of the law and the reforms that we make.

Just to remind us in the Senate, we were very specific in title I. The specifics of title I said we will train the 6,000 Border Patrol agents and put them online. That takes 2 years to do. It said we will build the barriers where necessary geographically and the roads where essential. That is doable in 2 years. We will deploy the 27 UAVs, the eyes in the sky, to surveil the entire 2,000-mile southwestern border. That is doable, and it is doable within a year. We will build the detention facilities to end the catch-and-release practice and to begin to have true enforcement on the border. And we will have a verification program for guest workers and immigrants that is verifiable and not forgeable. That takes 2 years. So as a practical matter, as people have backed up from the original debate, they have looked forward. They now are seeing through the forest to look at the trees, and they say, yes, if we secure the border, it will take 2 years, but it is going to take 2 years to implement whatever else we would do on worker reform as well.

So folks are coming together. People are beginning to talk, and I am pleased with that--pleased with that because I am the grandson of an immigrant who came to this country, became a naturalized citizen, and I honor our immigration process. I am glad to see that because we depend on a workforce that is vibrant and dependable. And I am pleased to hear that because I believe the American people consider our border an emergency. And now that all the players are beginning to talk, hopefully we can close the deal.

Mr. President, yesterday the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, offered two amendments to the Homeland Security bill. Although they failed, they laid the groundwork for what I think is an important step for us to take and that is to go ahead and move forward with what all of us agree are the necessary steps for border security. That is the foundation upon which we can reach the final agreements on guest worker, on green cards, on quotas, and on citizenship, but only after the American people are convinced we have made the commitment to secure our border will the American people want us to make any deal on reform of immigration.

We pass emergency supplementals for various things in this body. We have done it in response to Katrina; we have done it in response to Iraq. I submit the American people would tell you there is no greater emergency than securing our border. If the White House sent an emergency supplemental to this Senate for the money to fund the UAVs, the 6,000 Border Patrol agents, and the rest of title I, I doubt we would see maybe one or two dissenters because everybody knows it is an emergency, they know it needs to be done. And if it is, in fact, correct, that border security first is the trigger for comprehensive reform which is necessary, then let's declare it an emergency. Let's have the proposal come to the floor, let's debate it, and let's fund it, so as the year progresses, as the hearings are done, as we come back in session in September, we in this Congress can deal with comprehensive reform built on the foundation of comprehensive border security first.

Mr. President, I appreciate your cooperation and that of all the colleagues in this body as we work dealing with a very difficult and complicated but a very doable reform of our immigration laws. I appreciate the commitment of those so far in border security first, and I think in the end all of us together--the executive and legislative branches--can come together on comprehensive reform that is built on securing our border to ensure the reforms we make are lasting and agreed to.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for the Highway Watch' program.

Highway Watch' is a national program to enhance the security and overall preparedness on our Nation's highways through training highway professionals to be the ``eyes and ears'' of our highways. The Highway Watch' program, managed by the American Trucking Associations, recruits and trains professional truck drivers to identify and report security and safety situations on our Nation's roads.

Highway Watch' has enrolled more than 330,000 highway professionals and expects to enroll more than 1,000,000 by March, 2007. In my State of Georgia, the training is mandatory for the more than 300,000 commercial drivers licensed in Georgia. To date, the State of Georgia has enrolled more than 18,000 participants.

I share with you two of the successes of the program. An instructor at a Michigan truck-driving school grew suspicious when ten students showed up to verify their safety and driving skills. The individuals had little knowledge about driving a commercial vehicle and could not verify their commercial driver's licenses. It turned out that the individuals were illegal immigrants and some were on a terrorist watch list.

In another example, Highway Watch' members reported a man photographing and videotaping fuel tanker trucks and asking questions. Forty-eight hours after a ``Be On the Look Out'' (BOLO) notice was issued by Highway Watch', the man was in custody.

This program has fostered a good working relationship between the public and private sector, and is a model for how corporations can teach vigilance to their employees. I encourage the Department of Homeland Security to place the requisite monies for this important program in the Department of Homeland Security annual budget, and encourage the appropriators to continue their commitment to the program.

I look forward to working with my colleagues and ask for continued support of the Highway Watch' program to help ensure that our Nation's highways are safe and secure.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to allow the U.S. Congress to protect the American flag.

I was elected 2 years ago, in the most recent election. I ran on a campaign of three basic promises and commitments to the people of Georgia: The first was to support the President and our men and women in harm's way in the war on terror. The second was to work diligently for strong fiscal accountability on behalf of the Congress. And the third was to vote in favor of confirming the judges appointed by the President of the United States to the Federal bench. With those promises, I made the statement that I really felt as though the division of powers of our Constitution was sound, and that it was absolutely important for judges to interpret the law, not to make the law.

This amendment has been said by some to be a violation of the first amendment. This amendment has nothing to do with speech or expression. It has everything to do with protecting our flag and allowing the Congress to write those laws that would prohibit physical desecration of our flag.

Unlike some, I do not believe the flag is an inanimate object. I believe it is a living symbol for which our men and women in harm's way have fought for over two centuries.

Just a month ago, I went to Normandy. I went to Bellewood. I went to the Netherlands and Margraten. I went to Belgium and Carthage in Northern Africa. We did seven ceremonies in 6 days at seven American cemeteries, cemeteries where tens of thousands of Americans are buried, having paid the ultimate sacrifice in World War I and World War II. They died to protect the first amendment. But if those in the graves could come back and speak, I don't think a one would say they died to have the flag they fought for desecrated.

The courts have also been inconsistent in this case in my judgment about the first amendment and expression. The court, in 1989, in Texas v. Johnson, and in 1990 in the case of the United States v. Eichman, ruled that burning the flag was protected by the first amendment. I find it ironic that in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Virginia case, Virginia v. Black, that the burning of a cross in someone's front yard was not expression and, therefore, the Virginia law banning it was upheld.

I did a little research on that case which led me to find out that the District of Columbia has that law, the State of Georgia has that law, and many States in the United States have that law, which says the terrible act of desecrating a cross and burning it is protected--is fine for the States to do that. In fact, I read a little bit about Clarence Thomas's opinion written in that 2003 case, and I want to share his remarks because it applies directly to my point on protecting the flag and not allowing its desecration. Justice Thomas said:

This statute prohibits only conduct, not expression. ust as

one cannot burn down someone's house to make a political

point and then seek refuge in the First Amendment, those who

hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.

I don't think it can be said more succinctly or more clearly.

The amendment that is to be voted on by this Senate, hopefully sometime today or tomorrow, is an amendment that does nothing to prohibit the speech of anyone but does everything to protect the flag from being desecrated. I think those brave men and women who died for this country would agree with that, I agree with that, and I think the people of Georgia agree with that. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of passage of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, for offering this amendment. I have the greatest regard for the committee and subcommittee chairmen. Senators Warner and McCain are outstanding Members of this body. I beg to differ with them, and I want to focus my debate on two critical areas.

One is Senator Chambliss presents as a selling point of this amendment that $235 million in savings that a multiyear contract brings would not happen if you were doing annual contracts. The distinguished Senator from Arizona acknowledged, did not argue that that number was not correct. The distinguished Senator from Virginia also did not argue that number wasn't correct but made the following statement, that that is not a substantial savings. That is at best a subjective judgment, but I would call $235 million substantial any time.

Secondly, I would like to quote from a letter--and I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record--dated June 8 from James Finley, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, to the GAO.

Over the past several procurement lots, the Air Force has

been very successfully working with the prime contractor to

drive down cost. Unit flyaway costs have come down 35 percent

between Lot 1 and Lot 5. If stopped, production re-start

would be very costly and difficult to resume, breaking this

positive trend.

Mr. President, I was in business--didn't build airplanes but built houses--and I know a little bit about R&D development costs, but I know what the Raptor does.

Many of the things that were referred to as difficulties were predictable experiences in the development of a weapons system. The Raptor is the finest airplane ever built by any government anywhere any time, and the pilots who fly it attest this meets and exceeds every specification.

For me as a Senator, the other specification I want to meet is saving the taxpayers of the United States of America money; $235 million is a substantial savings. The Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, is right. This amendment establishes a 3-year multiyear contract for the F-22 is right, and I urge my colleagues to support it in the Chamber.

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate one more time. I want to make a couple of points as clearly as I can.

First of all, the debate we have heard this morning is a classic debate about two very different philosophies--one that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system we have in the United States of America of competition and entrepreneurship, and the second is the argument that says Government knows better in the top-down mandates work.

In 1970, Republicans tried wage and price controls to control inflation. They worked miserably. Democrats have tried, time and again, for wage controls, and they failed to have the intended consequences. They have because you are interjecting yourself into

the marketplace but only in one segment.

Second, the Senator from Massachusetts yesterday held up Europe as an example of how higher minimum wages work.

I have just returned from two of those European countries--Germany and France.

I would like to make the clear point as to why the Senator from Wyoming is right and, with all due respect, the Senator from Massachusetts is wrong.

High minimum wage laws in the countries of France and Germany have caused the following:

France's unemployment is 10 percent more, or two times that of the United States of America. Unemployment for youth in France is over 20 percent.

We have seen on the nightly news--and I saw firsthand when I was there--the tremendous economic problems the Government of France is having in driving its own economy. And it has declared itself its own worst enemy but could not get concessions to pull back some of these mandates. Therefore, the French economy is growing at 1.6 percent a year this year, a rate less than half that of the United States, with a minimum wage rate that is compounded over that of the United States.

Our great trading partner and great friend, Germany, has an unemployment rate of 11 percent.

Those are the two countries that were cited yesterday as the example as to why the higher minimum wage works.

In fact, they are an example of it not working.

Second, with regard to State minimum wages going up, that is precisely where our Constitution, our country, and our Founding Fathers believed these decisions should be made; that is, at the State level.

In fact, the Senator from Connecticut talked about raising the Federal minimum wage to a level less than the minimum wage in the State of Connecticut today and much less than what it goes to next year. It is right for the States to control those minimum wages.

Lastly, I have heard three times about the survey of small businesses where 86 percent say this is not an issue that is being quoted as a reason why we shouldn't even be debating this.

I ran a small business. I understand small business. The reason it wasn't an issue for 86 percent of them is mostly because people pay more than the Federal minimum wage anyway.

That is the name of the game in this country--for the marketplace to dictate.

But go find out who those 14 percent are. I will tell you. They are the people affected by the unintended consequence of a raise in the minimum wage. The 68 percent are either independent contractors or higher skilled workers, where the Federal minimum wage rate is not in effect in the first place. But those 14 percent are in the tourism industry, in the construction industry, in the maintenance industry, in the short-order cook industry or in the fast food industry. They are the ones who are getting their foot on the ladder.

Go interview those 14 percent, and you will find that the economic study I quoted yesterday is, in fact, correct. Every increase in the minimum wage will cost some of them their jobs.

In our free enterprise system, there are three components to the price of a product. One is the cost of goods, the second one is the cost to sell the goods, and third is the profit. If you raise the cost of goods sold, which you do by raising the wage rate, you either have to lower the marketing, lower your profits or increase your productivity.

What will every business do? First, they will increase their productivity. They will try to ask more of their workers so the mandated increase in their wages is neutralized by employing less people.

I commend the Senator from Wyoming on his legislation. It is a 21st century approach to the American workforce and the free enterprise system. And I respectfully oppose the proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 7 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I heard the distinguished deputy minority

leader speak last Friday morning in about a 15-minute speech, and he just added another minute, about Iraq. So I come to the floor to address the specific points the distinguished Senator just raised and the potential amendments that will be offered on the floor.

I want to tell you about the flashback that went through my mind as I sat in that chair and listened to that speech. The flashback was to my generation's war in the 1960s and 1970s in Vietnam. The flashback was to what I remember started in 1970 and culminated in 1972.

I commend my staff, in particular Andrew Billing, for spending the weekend accumulating the speeches on the floor of the Senate from August of 1970 to May of 1972, speeches by Cranston and McGovern and Kennedy and Byrd and Humphrey. They talked about it was time for us to start withdrawing, first not on a time certain, but by just a certain number of troops, until the crescendo built so loud over 18 months it became a date certain, August 31, 1972.

The debate on the Senate floor drove the policy of the United States of America against communism and in defense of freedom, and all of us remember what happened. The first steps were it wasn't a date certain, it was 120,000 troops, and we went from a half million to 380,000 and then to 240,000, and then when we got to 240,000, the resolution became: Withdraw by August 31, 1972.

Anyone who was alive on that date who remembers that scene remembers precisely what happened: the last of the Americans to leave Saigon on the roof of our Nation's embassy being shot at by the Vietcong as they were climbing a rope ladder into a Huey helicopter.

We lost over 50,000 American lives in Vietnam and a lot of them between the beginning of that debate to withdraw in August of 1970 until the end of it in August of 1972.

I know there is a proposed amendment, probably by the Senator from Michigan, that will begin the same way the amendments began over 30 years ago on this Senate floor: not a date certain, but a scaling down of our commitment. And to that I want to address the damage that will do to our effort.

First and foremost, it hands a victory to our enemy they cannot win on the battlefield. The terrorists have said it is to psychologically destroy the will of America that they want to win the battle. They know they can't win it on the battlefield. Why should we begin to question our resolve and, worst of all, why should we repeat the horrible mistake of the way in which we managed our conflict in the seventies?

It is time we recognized that we are winning a great victory for mankind, not just the Iraqi people; that America went to enforce a U.N. resolution when the U.N. would not; that we deposed a dictator that everybody said was bad. We won in Afghanistan over the Taliban, and we are winning in Iraq today over the insurgency headed by al-Qaida.

Have some of us forgotten 9/11/2001? Have we forgotten the USS Cole? Have we forgotten the fatwa issued in 1996 when war was declared by al- Qaida on the United States of America? Most Americans haven't.

I want to conclude by three little stories about the past month in my life.

I stood on the courthouse steps in Walton County, GA, this Saturday welcoming home eight members of the 48th Brigade from Iraq. I stood there with all the citizens of Monroe and Walton Counties cheering them on--all the citizens, including Robert Stokely, the father of SGT Mike Stokely who died in August of 2005 in Iraq. He came up and gave me Michael's dog tag, hugged me, grabbed my hand, and he welcomed home those eight soldiers, knowing that his son, Michael, the ninth, was not home with them, but he was proud of his effort.

Let's make sure Michael didn't die in vain. Let's not lose our resolve on the floor of the Senate.

The second incident I want to describe is what happened yesterday in the Atlanta airport. I was late. I was running for my flight. I went through the atrium. All of a sudden a huge round of applause erupted. I stopped. I didn't know what in the world was going on. I turned and looked, and there marched about 30 members of the United States Army in their desert fatigues on the way to an airplane, probably on their way to Iraq, and all those citizens in that airport from around the world flying through Atlanta stopped to give them a standing ovation.

I don't think those people would want us to set deadlines, timetables, and withdraw from the ultimate battle.

And my last analogy is in Margraten in the Netherlands 3 weeks ago when Senators Craig, Specter, Burr, and myself sat on a beautiful sun- lit day before 7,000 Dutch in the American Cemetery in the Netherlands as the Royal Dutch Air Force flew over in a missing-man formation and as the Royal Dutch Senior Man's Choir sang ``God Bless America.''

I stood there for the better part of an hour having my hand shook by citizens of Holland thanking me for what Americans did 62 years ago when they invaded Normandy, fought the Battle of the Bulge, and deposed Adolph Hitler.

There is nothing different about the hatred and intolerance for humanity, race, and religion of Adolph Hitler and the intolerance for race, religion, and faith of al-Qaida. The battle is just as great. The warriors may be different, the site may be different, the methodology may be different, but the result would be the same.

Had we not stayed the course in the 1940s, the world would have lost. If we do not stay the course today, if we turn our back, the world will lose again.

Once again, the sons and daughters of the United States of America are fighting the right war in the right place at the right time for the right reason. For us to talk about timetables or suggest drawdowns or compromise our commitment is just plain wrong.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to talk about the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts. I want to specifically commend the Senator for his passion and enthusiasm. But it reminds me of a line in an old country song: ``You only hurt the ones you love.''

The graphs that we were shown were macro graphs about all economies and all unemployment in the country. The people on minimum wage, which this is designed to help, are those at the lowest end of the skill level and the beginning level of employment.

When the distinguished Senator from New Jersey referred to the 15 million Americans who were on the minimum wage 15 years ago as if they were still on it today, it was deceiving and misleading. Those are not the same 15 million people. They are 15 million new people who are getting a foothold in the joy that is America by beginning on the ladder of employment.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly cautioned the Congress on this very subject and against raising the minimum wage for that reason. The Chairman pointed out that such a move ``increases unemployment and, indeed, prevents people who are at the early stages of their careers from getting a foothold in the ladder of promotions.''

The Federal Government can dictate what anybody pays anybody, but we cannot dictate who is hired. If we raise the component cost of employment--as the bill of the Senator from Massachusetts would--29 percent, it stands to reason that you put at risk 29 percent of those who are employed at the lowest level. What happens is that people seek a more efficient worker at the detriment of the least skilled and the least qualified.

One year after the first minimum wage was established, Franklin Roosevelt's own Department of Labor made the following observation:

In a number of instances, there have been reports that

workers who had been receiving less than [the new minimum

wage] had been laid off, and replaced by more efficient

workers.

The marketplace will drive employment, and when we in Government infuse ourselves into an issue and make an arbitrary adjustment, then the marketplace will make the adjustment for the business community and the more efficient worker will be employed.

When the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts referred to the tremendous job growth and creation between the next-to-the-last increase in the minimum wage and the last increase in the minimum wage, again it was a macro graph. The fact is that while employment skyrocketed during the dot-com era, those were high-technology, high- end jobs. The reality was that, as a result of the Congressionally- mandated increase in the minimum wage, technology replaced a lot of those minimum wage, low-skilled jobs, and actually unemployment increased at the lowest end. It is only right to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

It is interesting that researchers at the University of Wisconsin did a study not too long ago to determine what the minimum wage did to welfare mothers, that I give you, Mr. President, as an example. The study revealed that welfare mothers in States that raised their respective minimum wages remained on public assistance 44 percent longer than those in States where the minimum wage was not raised, making the point I made earlier; that is, getting a foothold on the ladder of success in America means getting in the employment chain. And the more we put pressure on how much it costs to bring someone into that chain, the more it punishes or penalizes someone who is not in it.

There is another deception which goes on in this argument, and that is that everybody who is on the low end of the chain and a minimum wage earner is at the bottom of the scale in life.

President Clinton's first Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, once observed ``most minimum wage workers aren't poor.'' He is right. Today, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the average family income of a minimum wage worker is above $43,000 a year--well above the national average. There are reasons for that.

Accordingly, minimum wage increases are inefficiently targeted to help poor workers since fully 85 percent of minimum wage earners live with their parents, have a working spouse, or are living alone without children. In fact, when Congress last raised the minimum wage in 1997, only 17 percent of the benefits of that increase went to families living below the poverty level. For comparison, over 33 percent of the benefits went to the richest two-fifths of all families, which is another secret to raising the minimum wage.

It is not just at the lowest end of employment or the beginning level, but there are contracts in America that are indexed to the minimum wage. If the United States of America and this Congress force an increase in the minimum wage, then it very well could trigger, in a labor contract, in a labor organization with a company, an automatic increase in the pay scale for people far and above the minimum wage. Once again, it has an arbitrary effect on the marketplace that the marketplace will adjust, and when it adjusts, someone will lose a job or find it harder to get a job.

The University of Georgia in my home State recently did a study. The economist who did that study was Joseph J. Sabia, a Ph.D. graduate in economics from none less than Cornell University. He used Government data from January of 1979 until December of 2004. This is a 25-year longitudinal study, and in sum, Dr. Sabia found that a 10-percent increase in the minimum wages causes a nine-tenths of 1 percent to a 1.1 percent decrease in retail employment, and an eight-tenths of 1 percent to a 1.2 percent decrease in small business employment. Dr. Sabia's research confirmed yet again that low-skilled workers is the group that is most likely to be most negatively impacted by the minimum wage hike.

The study also reiterated minimum wage hikes are not an effective means of reducing poverty among working poor because most minimum wage workers are second or third earners in a family--teens or dependents-- and most workers in poor households earn more than the minimum wage.

But the best study I refer to most often is the study I conducted during 33

years in the private sector employing hundreds of individuals in a real estate company. I knew what competitive marketplace factors were, and I knew how, when we brought people in--and I had some jobs in my company that were at the lower end, minimum wage to start. They may have been in maintenance, may have been in building upkeep, may have been operators on the night desk. But I always found myself being pressured by the market, not the Government, to raise the wage of the good worker because the good workers, as they improved and gained their self- confidence, shopped around.

In most of the years I worked, we were in the type of economy we are today. We were in full employment where you are competing for the best and the brightest. Those who are motivated, those who enter the system, those who are at minimum wage to start with will quickly rise as they gain skills, confidence, and self-esteem.

If we think an arbitrary, mandatory 29-percent increase in somebody's wages is going to solve poverty, improve their self-esteem or, in fact, solve the problem the Senator from Massachusetts intends it to solve, we are wrong. Instead, it is probably going to deny about 29 percent of those starting at that level an opportunity early on. It probably, as President Roosevelt's Administration found in 1939, is going to cause some people to actually lose their jobs. And worst of all, it is a feel-good amendment whose intention ends up having the absolute opposite result.

I care deeply for everybody in my State, everybody in this country, and for everybody entering the workplace. I believe the minimum wage is appropriate, but I believe to take a time of full employment, a time of a vibrant economy, a time when study after study indicates the exact opposite of what the distinguished Senator said, would be sending the absolute worst signal.

I believe in the empowerment of our workers, not in the slavery of our workers. I don't believe Government should arbitrarily try to fix something that, in fact, the marketplace fixes day in and day out 365 days a year.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to not try to fix something that is not broken. I will oppose the Kennedy amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish today to honor in the Record of the Senate my friend, B. Jackson Bandy, a great Georgian, a great American, and a great citizen of Whitfield County. I honor Jack upon his induction into the Junior Achievement Northwest Georgia Business Hall of Fame.

Junior Achievement was founded in Dalton, GA, in 1964 and sends volunteers from the community into local schools to teach students about business, economics, and personal finance. Each year the local district serves more than 8,900 students in 44 schools, including more than 30 schools in Whitfield and Murray Counties. The district has more than 300 volunteers. Nominees from this community for this award were selected based on business excellence, inspiring leadership, community involvement, and innovation.

In addition, Jack was one of three founders in 1956 of the tufted carpet business Coronet Industries, which was eventually bought by Beaulieu. But Jack is more than just a businessman

and great golfer. He is a family man--a wonderful and devoted father and grandfather. He would do anything for his family and friends and has touched the lives of many who will never be able to meet or thank him.

Jack worked for many years as a volunteer on the Hamilton Healthcare System Board of Trustees in Dalton and is now an honorary trustee. For all of his charitable giving and hard work, the hospital named the ``Bandy Parking Plaza'' in honor of Jack. He is the backbone of his Methodist Church and has worked on the board of the United Way. With his Junior Achievement honor, it is clear that Jack is devoted to educating young people at all levels, but he has also endowed the Bandy Chair in Preaching at Emory University, and the gym at Dalton State College is named for him.

Jack Bandy is a class act who is well loved in work and at home. He is interested in the lives and achievements in others and will be embarrassed that I am honoring him today. But I feel I would be remiss if I did not honor him for his achievements and sacrifices. He has given a great deal of his time and money to make Dalton, the State of Georgia, and our Nation a better place to live.

Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to pay my personal tribute and the tribute of all Georgians to the service of Robert Byrd in the U.S. Senate. Today marks the 48th year of his service, and now, today, he is the longest serving U.S. Senator in history.

I am distinctly honored to be in Senate and to have been elected here, and there are many reasons why I am honored. But one of the most wonderful experiences since my election has been the chance to come to know Robert Byrd. He, obviously, is a legend. He, obviously, is a great orator. But he is also a wonderful human being.

On Fridays it is my occasion to preside over the U.S. Senate for 3 hours. As the other Members of the Senate know, on Friday mornings we are not always in business. Therefore, Friday is the day where a lot of Members come to make speeches about issues of importance to them and their constituents.

On occasion, I have had the chance to hear Robert Byrd make one of his famous Friday morning speeches, probably the most enjoyable of which took place three Fridays ago when I was presiding over the Senate. Senator Byrd arrived in the Chamber, asked for recognition, and then spoke, basically without notes, for 48 minutes. I remember counting the minutes because I did

not want it to be over because he gave his famous Mother's Day speech. He paid tribute to his mom and all moms in the United States of America.

Robert Byrd is a wonderful, unique institution, a man of great honor, great intellect, and great capacity.

One of my other great experiences since coming to the Senate has been to work with him on the bill we recently passed and is now on the President's desk, the mine safety bill. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Occupational Safety, it fell my lot to deal with the tragedies of the Sago mine disaster and subsequent disasters that took place in Kentucky.

Obviously, the Sago mine is in West Virginia, and I traveled to West Virginia and met with those mine families. But I also met with Robert Byrd on numerous occasions, talking about what we as the U.S. Senate could do to try to see to it that we reacted to where there might be shortcomings in the mine safety laws and to help institutionalize better practices not only in our inspections but in the operations of those mines.

With all the energy of a teenager, love and compassion for those widows, and with great effort on his own part, Senator Byrd worked closely with us over the last 6 months since that disaster, and a couple weeks ago we passed in this body--and the House passed 2 days later--the mine safety bill.

Today, mining is a safer profession because of Robert Byrd and his compassionate love for the people of West Virginia and the coal miners who work there.

I could go on and on telling personal stories, but I will not do that. I simply close by saying, of all the great distinctions and honors I have had to serve in this body, none is greater than to get to know the great man of great capacity and great compassion, the honorable Robert Byrd from the State of West Virginia--now the longest serving Senator in the history of the U.S. Senate.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record).