[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1011-S1048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 100, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for Gregg) amendment No. 101 (to amendment No. 
     100), to provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending 
     by establishing enhanced recission authority under fast-track 
     procedures.
       Sununu amendment No. 112 (to amendment No. 100), to prevent 
     the closure and defunding of certain women's business 
     centers.
       Kyl amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 100), to extend 
     through December 31, 2008, the depreciation treatment of 
     leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements.
       Bunning amendment No. 119 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income 
     tax increase on Social Security benefits.
       Enzi (for Ensign/Inhofe) amendment No. 152 (to amendment 
     No. 100), to reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, 
     and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system.
       Enzi (for Ensign) amendment No. 153 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to preserve and protect Social Security benefits of American 
     workers, including those making minimum wage, and to help 
     ensure greater congressional oversight of the Social Security 
     system by requiring that both Houses of Congress approve a 
     totalization agreement before the agreement, giving foreign 
     workers Social Security benefits, can go into effect.
       Enzi (for Ensign) amendment No. 154 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to improve access to affordable health care.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:37 
having arrived, there will be 1 hour of debate in relation to amendment 
No. 101.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that during quorum calls in this 
hour, the time be equally divided on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time is left and how is it divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 26 minutes, half of 
which belongs to the Senator from Massachusetts. The other half belongs 
to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, could you tell us the entire allotted time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans control 21 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are going to be voting on the minimum 
wage this morning. Hopefully, the Senate will vote for what I consider 
to be a clean bill--a clean bill being legislation that will increase 
the minimum wage to $7.25 over a 2-year period.
  There will be another measure that will be voted on that Senator 
Gregg and Senator Conrad will address, which is a line-item veto. But 
the fundamental issue we have before the Senate is the issue of an 
increase in the minimum wage--an increase in the minimum wage which has 
not taken place over the period of the last 10 years, and which I am 
very hopeful we will get strong bipartisan support for.
  If you look over the history of the minimum wage, the nine different 
times we have raised the minimum wage, we have had bipartisan support 
for that increase. It has only been in the very recent years that 
Republican leadership has led the fight against it. We now have new 
leadership in the

[[Page S1012]]

House and the Senate and the Democratic leadership that brought this 
matter forward. We offer an open hand to our Republican friends to 
support this program, which is so important to so many working 
families.
  From our earliest days, we have been a nation of strong values--
particularly fairness and opportunity and concern for our fellow 
citizens. While we are a country of individualists, we have always 
recognized that America is strongest when we all prosper together. One 
of the earliest governing documents in our history, the Mayflower 
Compact, talked about laws that would support ``the general good.'' 
Later, in the preamble to our Constitution, we pledged that our 
Government would ``promote the general welfare.''
  That is our proud history. Our Nation has thrived because we have 
made a commitment to shared prosperity. The vote we will cast today is 
a measure of our commitment to these values.
  Minimum wage workers have been waiting for a raise for 10 long and 
difficult years. They have worked more than one job. They have saved 
every penny they can for the future of their children. They have 
decided each day what food they can afford and what bills they can pay.
  Americans understand fairness, and they know this is unfair. They 
have called on us time and again to raise the minimum wage, but time 
and again--year after year--this Congress has turned its back on 
working families.
  It is wrong that hard-working men and women cannot afford to put food 
on the table or heat their homes. It is wrong that our productivity 
soars, but our lowest paid workers fall further and further behind. And 
it would be wrong to demand a price of more and more tax breaks before 
these hard-working families get the raise they have earned.
  Congress has voted itself a raise eight times over the past 10 years, 
while minimum wage workers have received nothing. Congress never 
demanded a price for increasing its wages. So why should we demand a 
price for giving minimum wage workers a raise? What is good enough for 
Congress surely is good enough for American workers. I say Congress 
should do unto others what it has done for itself. And we have not just 
been doing for ourselves. Over the last 10 years, we have done a whole 
lot for corporate America. We have given them $276 billion in corporate 
tax breaks. We have done a lot for the wealthiest Americans, who have 
seen their incomes skyrocket with generous tax giveaways. Why can't we 
do one thing for minimum wage workers? No strings attached, no 
giveaways for the powerful--why can't we do this one simple thing 
because it is the right thing to do?
  Minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity. They do some of 
the most difficult back-breaking jobs in our society. They clean our 
offices. They serve our food. They take care of our children in 
preschools, and care for our elderly in nursing homes. They deserve a 
fair wage that respects the dignity of their work, and they should not 
have to live in poverty.
  President Kennedy once said:

       If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it 
     cannot save the few who are rich.

  We are a rich nation, but unless we do more to help the poorest 
Americans, we will not be able to save ourselves.
  We have an opportunity today to take one bold step toward solving the 
problem of poverty in this great Nation. Today--right now--we can pass 
the House bill and send it to the President. We can raise the minimum 
wage and give 13 million hard-working people hope for a brighter 
future.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in 
voting for minimum wage workers today. This should not be a partisan 
issue. It is about standing behind our values. It is long past time to 
do the right thing and give minimum wage workers a raise.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I see the floor manager from our side, 
Senator Gregg, on the floor. I talked to him about yielding me 10 
minutes from our time. I ask if that is still acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 101

  Mr. President, I want to talk specifically about the second-look-at-
wasteful-spending amendment which is pending and that we will vote on 
here in a few moments. I hope to come back later today, perhaps, and 
talk more generally about the minimum wage bill that is pending, the 
underlying bill, and talk about how I hope our goal would be to train 
and educate American workers to fill good, high-paying jobs that 
currently go wanting for lack of a trained workforce. I would hope we 
would spend at least as much of our efforts on training them, providing 
them the alternatives to earn those higher, good wages as we spend 
focusing on the 2.5 percent of the workforce who actually earn the 
minimum wage--generally people who are starting into the workforce: 
teenagers, part-time workers, and the like--and how, notwithstanding 
our best of intentions, some of our actions here, by Government 
actually setting a minimum wage, may actually put some of them out of 
work.
  But I would focus on the second-look-at-wasteful-spending amendment 
and challenge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in a good 
way.
  Since we have come back after the election, and we have this new 
110th Congress, we have heard a lot of very appropriate commentary on 
both sides of the aisle about the importance of our working together in 
order to solve some of the Nation's most serious problems. The 
President talked about that last night. One of the areas the President 
spoke about last night in his State of the Union Message--and I hear an 
awful lot about from my constituents--is concern about wasteful 
spending.
  Indeed, a lot of what we did on a bipartisan basis this last week on 
lobbying and ethics reform was to turn the bright light of public 
scrutiny on the earmark process--special appropriations stuck in bills 
that frequently benefit individuals and groups--to turn the bright 
light on those, offer greater transparency, so the public can know how 
their tax dollars are being spent and, hopefully, people understanding 
that whatever they do will be exposed to public scrutiny, they will 
make sure their conduct in doing so conforms with the highest ethical 
standards they have a right to expect from us.
  But the fact is that Presidents on both sides of the aisle--President 
Clinton, when he was President; now President Bush--have sought the 
authority of the line-item veto or, in this instance, what we are 
talking about is the so-called enhanced rescission. It is a process 
where the President, once an appropriations bill is sent over to him, 
highlights a concern he or she has about an appropriations bill, and 
sends it back over to the Congress to reconsider.
  This is a way to provide the kind of laser-like focus we need to have 
on wasteful spending projects that occasionally--some might say more 
than occasionally--creep into our Federal appropriations process.
  In the spirit of bipartisanism that I think the American people would 
like to see when confronting some of our biggest challenges, my hope 
would be that Members of this Congress--Members of this Senate--on a 
bipartisan basis, would support the very kind of bill this represents, 
and that they were advocating for when Senator Daschle, the Democratic 
leader, offered and sponsored with the support of at least 21 Democrats 
when President Clinton was in office.
  I hold up a chart. I showed this yesterday, but I think it is worth 
looking at again. This chart is a comparison of the Daschle and Gregg 
expedited rescission amendments. You can see in all respects the 
Daschle amendment--here, again, Tom Daschle, the Senator from South 
Dakota, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, offered an amendment 
which in all respects, except two--I will talk about that in a minute--
is the same as Senator Gregg is proposing, the so-called second-look-
at-wasteful-spending amendment.
  The only two ways they differ is that the Gregg amendment does permit 
rescission of new mandatory spending. If you look at the places where 
money is being spent fastest in the Federal budget, it is in mandatory 
or entitlement

[[Page S1013]]

programs, which are going up at the rate of 8 percent or more a year, 
on autopilot. I applaud Senator Gregg for including a provision that 
permits rescission of new mandatory spending programs.
  But that and permitting four rescission packages annually, those are 
the two areas where the Gregg amendment differs, albeit in a relatively 
minor way, from what Senator Daschle proposed in 1995.
  You will see on this next chart, here is a list of the current Senate 
Democrats who supported the Daschle amendment in 1995. My hope would 
be, with this little refresher for our colleagues who actually 
supported this good policy back in 1995, that they would see fit to 
vote to close off debate and to actually have an up-or-down vote on the 
Gregg amendment.
  As I said, if it was good policy in 1995, supported by these good 
Democratic colleagues, I think they would agree--I would hope they 
would agree--it is a good policy in 2007 or, if it is not, I would hope 
they would come to the floor and explain their change of heart because 
I think it would represent a change in position.
  So this amendment goes to the heart of what I hear people express 
their concerns about most as I travel back in my State and as I read 
and listen to people's concerns, as expressed through the media, that 
Federal spending and our failure to be good trustees of the Federal tax 
dollar is one of their biggest concerns, along, obviously, with 
national security issues such as the war in Iraq. The other issue I 
hear a lot about--the President talked about it last night--is 
immigration reform.
  Mr. President, I see the budget chairman on the floor, and I know he 
and Senator Gregg have committed to work on a bipartisan basis to try 
to deal with not just these issues, such as earmarks that abuse the 
public trust, and which somehow slip into our appropriations process, 
but to look at the larger picture and try to figure out how we can 
sustain some of the most important programs the American people have 
come to rely upon, things such as Social Security and Medicare, and 
that we not continue to spend in a way that imposes a financial burden 
for those programs on our children and grandchildren. That raises a 
profound moral issue that I believe we must confront.
  So I do appreciate the efforts that are being made to try to deal 
with some of our hardest problems. I think there is a great opportunity 
provided here. Some might find this a little surprising for me to say 
being a Republican, but I think divided Government provides an 
opportunity for this body to do some very big and important and 
significant things. I do not think politics has to be a zero-sum game 
where Democrats win and Republicans lose, or Republicans win and 
Democrats lose in the public policymaking process. I think we can all 
win, and in so doing the American people can win, if we will simply 
come together in a commonsense, result-oriented sort of way and try to 
solve some of these problems.
  I think Senator Gregg's amendment picks up on the wisdom of Senator 
Daschle's amendment back in 1995. And I frankly would be perplexed if 
we were unable to get the kind of bipartisan support to close off 
debate, to have an up-or-down vote on the floor, and demonstrate to the 
American people that, you know what, we heard the message on November 
7, and you know what, we get it. We understand what you were telling 
us. You wanted us to work together, and we are working together to try 
to solve some of our Nation's biggest problems.

  We reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time remains on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota controls 13 
minutes, the Senator from Massachusetts controls 7\1/2\ minutes, and 
the Republicans control 11 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I ask the Chair to inform me when I 
have consumed 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for his remarks about 
Senator Gregg and me and our proposal to try to work on the overall 
major challenges facing us, which are long-term fiscal imbalances that 
are especially affected by the entitlement programs and the baby boom 
generation and the existing structural deficit we confront. We are 
engaged in a good-faith effort to try to address these long-term 
challenges. We were at breakfast together yesterday discussing those. I 
appreciate the Senator from Texas mentioning that.
  With respect to this specific proposal, I don't think it merits our 
support. In fact, it is a very serious mistake to go in this direction. 
This amendment is actually dangerous. I say that with great respect to 
the former chairman of the Budget Committee who has offered the 
amendment. I believe it is dangerous because this transfers power in a 
way the Founding Fathers did not envision and would not have supported. 
The power of the purse resides in the Congress of the United States 
because the Founding Fathers recognized that putting too much power in 
the hands of one person was a dangerous matter.
  Here are the things that are wrong with this line-item veto proposal. 
I will go on to address the big differences between the Daschle 
proposal and this one, but here is what is wrong with this line-item 
veto proposal: It represents an abdication of congressional 
responsibility; it shifts too much power to the executive branch, with 
very little impact on the deficit; it provides the President up to a 
year to submit rescission requests; requires Congress to vote within 10 
days; provides no opportunity for extended debate; and allows the 
President to cancel new mandatory spending passed by Congress, such as 
those dealing with Social Security, Medicare, veterans, and 
agriculture. That is breathtaking power. In fact, we could have this 
negotiation that the Senator from Texas was referencing between 
Democrats and Republicans on what has to be done to the long-term 
circumstance with Social Security and Medicare, we could reach a 
bipartisan conclusion, and then the President would have the unilateral 
power to come back and cherry-pick those provisions he didn't like. No 
President should be given that power.
  Let's talk about the line-item veto. This is what USA Today said in 
an editorial last year: It is a convenient distraction.

       The vast bulk of the deficit is not the result of self-
     aggrandizing line items, infuriating as they are. The deficit 
     is primarily caused by unwillingness to make hard choices on 
     benefit programs or to levy the taxes to pay for the true 
     costs of government.

  This is an article from the Roanoke Times last year:

       [T]he President already has the only tool he needs: The 
     veto.

  He has veto power. He can veto any one of these spending bills.

       He has chosen not to veto a single one. That Bush has 
     declined to challenge Congress in five-plus years is his 
     choice. The White House no doubt sees reviving this debate as 
     a means of distracting people from the missteps, 
     miscalculations, mistruths and mistakes that have dogged Bush 
     and sent his approval rating south.
       The current problems are not systemic; they are 
     ideological. A line-item veto will not magically grant 
     lawmakers fiscal discipline and economic sense.

  On the question of whether this has any effect on the deficit, this 
is the Acting CBO Director last year before the Congress, his 
testimony:

       Such tools, however, cannot establish fiscal discipline 
     unless there is political consensus to do so . . . In the 
     absence of that consensus, the proposed changes to the 
     rescission process . . . are unlikely to greatly affect the 
     budget's bottom line.

  This is from CQ, Congressional Quarterly, again of last year:

       Passage of [the line item veto] legislation would be ``a 
     political victory that would not address long-term problems 
     posed by growing entitlement programs,'' Gregg said.

  Senator Gregg himself said this would be ``a political victory that 
would not address long-term problems posed by growing entitlement 
programs.''
  He also said this last year in a separate publication:

       Senator Gregg said it would have ``very little impact on 
     the budget deficit.''

  He is right. The impact it would have is to transfer enormous power 
to the President. I am not just talking about this President, I am 
talking about any future President.

  This is what George Will, a conservative commentator, said:

       It would aggravate an imbalance in our constitutional 
     system that has been growing

[[Page S1014]]

     for seven decades: The expansion of executive power at the 
     expense of the legislature.

  Here is what an American Enterprise Institute scholar said about the 
line-item veto last year:

       The larger reality is that this proposal gives the 
     President a great additional mischief making capability, to 
     pluck out items to punish lawmakers he doesn't like, or to 
     threaten individual lawmakers to get votes on other things, 
     without having any noticeable impact on budget growth or 
     restraint.

  He went on to say:

       More broadly, it simply shows the lack of institutional 
     integrity and patriotism by the majority in Congress. They 
     have lots of ways to put the responsibility on budget 
     restraint where it belongs--on themselves. Instead, they 
     willingly, even eagerly, try to turn their most basic power 
     over to the President. Shameful, just shameful.

  On the question of the previous Daschle proposal, the suggestion that 
they are the same is not true. They are fundamentally different. The 
context is totally different as well. The Daschle amendment was offered 
in juxtaposition to another line-item veto proposal that was clearly 
unconstitutional--in fact, was judged to be so by the U.S. Supreme 
Court. So the Daschle proposal was an attempt to defeat a proposal 
which was clearly unconstitutional and which has been subsequently 
judged unconstitutional.
  But the further claim that the Gregg proposal before us now and the 
Daschle proposal are the same is clearly not correct. Let me ask three 
questions and give answers with respect to how the two differ.
  Can the President propose to rescind new mandatory items such as 
Social Security and Medicare reforms? Under the Gregg proposal, yes; 
under the Daschle proposal, no. That is a profound difference. Can you 
imagine if we were to reach an accommodation and agreement on long-term 
differences on these mandatory programs--Medicare, Social Security, 
agriculture, veterans--and then the President has the unilateral 
ability to go change it? I don't think so. That is not a direction we 
should take if we are going to have good-faith negotiation.
  No. 2, can the President propose rescissions from multiple bills in 
one rescissions package? Under the Gregg proposal, the answer to that 
question is yes. Under the Daschle proposal, the answer was no. Why 
does that matter? The President could take something that was very 
unpopular--for example, the bridge to nowhere--remember that? We had 
the debate last year about the bridge to nowhere. A handful of us voted 
against that bridge to nowhere, by the way. I voted against it. The 
President could have taken that proposal and combined it with a 
proposal that was important to an individual Member and that might have 
great merit, and he could combine the two and kill the one with the 
other.
  Let's be blunt. The President would have the ability to call a Member 
or have his staff call a Member and say: Look, I have a very 
controversial judge up there. I need your vote. And by the way, I am 
considering a project in your State that is critically important to 
you. I am going to have to line-item veto that. But I might be 
persuaded not to if I could have your support on this other matter. 
That is exactly what the Founding Fathers were concerned about--handing 
that kind of power to a President, that kind of power over an 
individual Member. That is a dangerous notion. It has been ruled 
unconstitutional in the past. I believe this would be ruled 
unconstitutional.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I, too, would like to speak on the line-
item veto amendment. This body has made a lot of progress in being much 
more transparent in how we spend America's money. We can see, if we 
look back over the last couple of weeks, that America appreciates what 
we have tried to do to take these earmarks or these pet projects or 
designated spending, whatever we call it, and make it available for 
every American to see. We could tell from our e-mails and letters and 
the reports in the media that this was something which made Congress 
look as if we were genuinely trying to be much more open and honest 
about how we spend America's money. The amendment before us now, what 
we refer to as the line-item veto or line-item rescission, would 
actually make this whole process much more accountable.
  I was interested in hearing my colleague make his point that the 
President could take one good item and put it with a really bad item 
and send it over to us and force us to make a decision. But let's think 
about what the President's options are now. We can send thousands of 
earmarks over in a bill to the President, and he only has two choices--
to take it or leave it, to take the whole thing or veto the whole 
thing--and work that has been done here and in the House for months 
either has to be accepted in total or thrown out in total. That doesn't 
make any sense.
  I will use the exact argument my colleague did. We should not be able 
to package all this good with all this bad and try to force it down the 
President's throat without the ability to have the checks and balances, 
the discussions that are needed so the American people can see we have 
thoroughly vetted these ideas and we are spending their money wisely.
  This line-item rescission package I support because this Congress 
needs the interaction with the President and the working relationship 
that would be caused by this particular bill. It allows the President, 
no more than four times a year, to go through our spending bills and to 
send those things back which he thinks are not national priorities. 
This is not real complicated. He does not veto what we send him; he 
just gets a recommendation in the process. And since his agencies in 
the executive branch are charged with carrying this out and spending 
this money, the President needs to be engaged in the process in more 
than a take-it-or-leave-it type of relationship. So no more than four 
times a year, the President can put together those things which he 
thinks are not national priorities and send them to the Congress. And 
all this bill does is guarantee that they get a vote.
  If the President tries to use this against individual Members, I know 
this body well enough to know that we are not going to pass his 
request.
  Any President that tries to do that for political purposes will find 
his rescission package, or that his recommendations to Congress will be 
dispensed with very quickly.
  This is important not only for this President but for many Presidents 
in the future. We know as Senators and Congressmen that over the next 
several decades this country is going to be faced with incredible 
fiscal crises. We have no idea how we are going to pay for Medicare and 
Medicaid in the future or Social Security. It is going to become more 
important every year that we cut wasteful spending and that we work 
with the President and with the House to do everything we can to cut 
those things that are not necessary.
  In many bills--and we know it happens--many items, earmarks, are 
voted on for political reasons, and it is a good idea to allow the 
President to package those things and send them back to us so that we 
can vote on them and move them out if they are not national priorities.
  This is not dissimilar at all to the BRAC process we created to 
eliminate unnecessary military bases. We found that Congressmen and 
Senators were not going to vote on an individual basis to eliminate a 
base in one State because we knew that then the Congressmen or Senators 
could vote to eliminate one in our State. It was a political dilemma 
that caused us for years to leave bases open that should have been 
closed.
  It is the same with Federal programs and spending year after year. 
One project might be in my State and one in another Senator's State. 
None of us are willing to step up and eliminate projects one at a time. 
We cannot vote on them that way. This line-item rescission opportunity 
is for the President to take those things that we know are not national 
priorities, put them in a package, and send them back over for us to 
vote on. We should not lose this opportunity.
  We need the President working with the Congress to eliminate wasteful 
spending--not this year or next year but for decades to come. This may 
be our only opportunity in a long time to make it happen. We have made 
tremendous progress on identifying the problems with corruption, 
wasteful spending, identifying earmarks, and all this

[[Page S1015]]

does is allow us to take it a step further and make sure we have the 
checks and balances from Congress and the executive branch to eliminate 
those things we know should not be in there and the President knows 
should not be in there.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment offered by 
our colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I 
support the concept of what is called a ``line item veto,'' more 
accurately described as an expedited Presidential rescission. But the 
proposal offered today has some fundamental flaws that prevent me from 
voting for it.
  There are a number of problems with the amendment before us, but let 
me call the body's attention to two of these flaws. First, the proposal 
goes far beyond the supposed target of this newly proposed authority; 
namely, unauthorized earmarks. When the line item veto is discussed, 
invariably it is the unauthorized earmark that is held up as the 
principal rationale justifying this new Presidential authority, and 
rightly so. The explosion in unauthorized earmarks over the last decade 
and more is a strong argument in favor of providing the President with 
additional authority in this area. But the amendment before us goes far 
beyond targeting earmarks. The Gregg amendment would allow the 
President to use the proposed expedited rescission authority to 
eliminate new provisions of programs like Medicare and Social Security, 
hardly measures that anyone would consider an earmark.
  Second, the proposal has too great a potential for political gaming. 
The amendment allows the President to wait a full year after initial 
enactment before submitting an expedited rescission. If we are going to 
craft new Presidential authority in this area, the goal ought to be to 
eliminate the potential wasteful spending, and to do so in a 
straightforward manner. There is no good reason for significant delay. 
Permitting the President to wait a year before submitting a proposed 
rescission opens the door for inappropriate use of potential 
rescissions as a political hammer to hold over individual Members.
  Mr. President, as I noted earlier, I support granting the President 
some additional authority in this area, but we need to be especially 
careful in crafting that authority. The Gregg amendment, however well 
intended, needs substantial improvement, and until that is done, I will 
oppose it.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the line-
item veto. This misguided proposal will hurt the communities we are 
here to represent. It will strip them of the voice they have today in 
Congress through each of us, and it will hand even more legislative 
power to the executive branch.
  As I saw in my own experiences, both here in the Senate and in the 
Washington State Legislature, a line-item veto is subject to abuse, 
pressure and horse-trading, and it violates the delicate balance of 
power that the Founders so carefully designed.
  Now I recognize that the idea sounds attractive. It suggests that we 
could cut spending and control the deficit without having to make any 
tough choices. Well, like a lot of ideas that sound good at first, once 
you look into it, the painful impact becomes clear.
  More importantly, I think all of us need to do the hard work of 
crafting responsible budgets. We need to legislate and govern and take 
the needs of the country and our States into consideration. We need to 
make the tough decisions--not pass the buck to the White House.
  I oppose the line-item veto today for the same reasons I opposed it 
in the 1990s. I voted against this gimmick when Congress handed that 
power to a Democratic President. And today I fight another attempt to 
hand that same power to a Republican President.
  For me, it is not about the party of the Chief Executive; it is about 
making sure that the constituents I represent have a voice in the 
budget decisions that affect their lives. The line-item veto is the 
wrong approach for three reasons.
  First, it would cede a tremendous amount of power from Congress to 
the executive branch. The Constitution is very clear that Congress has 
the power of the purse. The Framers of our Constitution carefully 
divided the powers of our Government between the three branches.
  When Congress tried this before, it was ruled unconstitutional. This 
time around, the sponsors have tweaked the bill to try to address those 
concerns, but the underlying problem still remains. We should not be 
handing our legislative power over to the executive branch. I made that 
argument in 1995--and it is even truer today. We have seen the Bush 
administration aggressively try to expand Presidential power and limit 
congressional input and oversight. We should stand our ground as the 
Founders intended--not surrender our constitutional authority to the 
executive branch.
  Second, the line item veto would hurt the constituents we represent. 
They rely on us to fight for their needs and priorities. Through the 
budget and appropriations process, we work to meet the needs in our 
local communities--needs that the administration would ignore. If we 
give up our ability to fight for our communities, our constituents will 
lose their voice because I can tell you, the communities we represent 
will not get fair consideration from a budget official sitting in 
Washington, DC.
  Last week, a group of constituents came to see me about a local road 
that needs to be improved. The changes they are seeking will improve 
safety, support economic development, and provide access to critically 
needed housing. I represent that community, so I know firsthand those 
improvements are needed. That community has me fighting for them and 
pushing for their needs. The administration is not going to do that. 
They are not going to send someone from Washington, DC to check out the 
road and see that it is unsafe. In fact, these constituents had just 
come from a meeting with an administration official who basically told 
them that, in regard to the continuing resolution, ``Good luck, we will 
be making the decisions this year.''
  That is just wrong. If we hand this power to the administration, we 
will surrender our voices, and our constituents will lose their voices 
in advocating for their communities. The families I represent know that 
if they have a problem, they can come and talk to me. But if you tell 
them that they have to track down someone at OMB and convince them to 
care about their local needs, our communities will suffer.
  I came to the Senate to represent the people of my home State of 
Washington. They elected me to be their voice on a wide array of issues 
affecting everything from their safety to their health, education, and 
economic well-being. I am not going to transfer my ability to fight for 
the people of Washington State to this or any other President. That is 
what this bill proposal would do, and I strongly oppose it.
  Third, experience has shown that the line-item veto is subject to 
abuse and may be applied unfairly by an administration. I have 
experience with line-item veto authority. I served in my State 
legislature and saw firsthand the kind of horse-trading that can occur 
when the Executive has this power.
  When President Clinton exercised the line-item veto in 1997, we saw 
serious problems in the way it was applied. The White House put forward 
standards for deciding which projects would be targeted. But then it 
attacked projects that actually met the standards. In 1997, I stood 
here on the Senate floor and detailed the mistakes the Clinton 
administration made in unfairly targeting projects for elimination. I 
don't want to see a repeat of those mistakes.
  Mr. President, crafting a responsible budget takes hard work. It 
requires tough choices. There is no gimmick or trick that will make the 
hard decisions go away. Handing our power and our constituents' power 
over to the White House certainly won't do it. So I say, rather than 
spending our time on a distraction, let's work on a real budget and on 
the real and difficult choices that are before us.
  Let's do the job that voters sent us here to do--without gimmicks and 
without trampling the Constitution.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in crafting our delicate system of 
checks and balances, our Founding Fathers vested in Congress what is 
commonly referred to as the ``power of the purse''--control over 
raising revenue and appropriating funds. While the virtue of Congress 
abdicating some of its

[[Page S1016]]

budget responsibility to the president is a subject of worthwhile 
debate, the construct of Senator Gregg's Second Look at Wasteful 
Spending Act of 2007 does little to return much needed fiscal 
discipline to our budget process. And while I support efforts to rein 
in our spending and to solve our Nation's budget woes, Senator Gregg's 
amendment would create a system far too susceptible to abuse.
  The Gregg amendment's weakness is in its construction. Up to four 
times a year, the President could package his or her proposed 
rescissions in any manner he or she chooses, selecting and combining 
provisions from any number of bills. Among the Gregg amendment's most 
significant flaws are the timetables it imposes. The amendment would 
give the President up to 1 full year after enactment of a provision to 
submit a rescission request. Even in the event that Congress rejects 
the President's request, the legislation still gives the President the 
power to defy the congressional vote and withhold spending for a 
program for up to 45 days. This formulation would effectively allow a 
President to hold hostage spending measures and force congressional 
votes on new bundles of spending provisions, injecting chaos into our 
budget process and wreaking havoc in countless other ways.
  There is no debate that we need to curb our spending. The Bush 
administration has run up a record debt and an unprecedented deficit, 
endangering our Nation's long-term financial health and our children's 
future. Unfortunately, as noted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, Senator Gregg's amendment does little to return much needed 
fiscal discipline to our budget process. I am open to considering a 
different proposal, keeping in mind that what we need is measured 
reform coupled with strong leadership that will exercise fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Gregg and 
Senator McConnell's ``Second Look at Wasteful Spending'' amendment. 
While I would prefer that this issue be addressed on a separate bill, I 
understand the procedural reasons behind why my colleague from New 
Hampshire is offering this amendment to the minimum wage package. I am 
treating this amendment as separate from the rest of the minimum wage 
debate and I hope my colleagues will do the same. I am pleased, 
however, that the Senate is able to debate this important issue on the 
floor.
  This amendment is a responsible step towards spending accountability. 
It provides for a greater level of accountability which is critical to 
enhance the fiscal well-being of the country. Senator Gregg's proposal 
allows both Congress and the President the opportunity to seriously 
reconsider both mandatory and discretionary spending. By allowing the 
President to single out wasteful spending and giving Congress the final 
say through vote on a rescission package, this amendment will help 
eliminate waste, rather than perpetuate the current out of control 
spending habits.
  By forcing Congress to take another look at spending, this amendment 
gives the President the ability to send up to four rescission packages 
a year. Congress then has up to 8 days to act on the President's 
proposal through a fast track process. However, a simple majority of 
both Houses of Congress must approve before any of the rescission 
package can become law. Finally, any savings from the rescissions must 
go to deficit reduction.
  I believe that ``A Second Look at Wasteful Spending'' is a simple, 
clear-cut proposal that stands within the parameters of the U.S. 
Constitution. This amendment includes the same principles of fiscal 
responsibility that have received bipartisan support since the passage 
of a comprehensive veto in 1992, and strongly echo the Daschle-Byrd 
proposal of 1995. Here is a chance for both Republicans and Democrats 
to help restrain frivolous spending.
  I emphasize the gravity of fiscal responsibility because it sets the 
standard for the success or failure of our Nation. We need to take 
action now to avert an even larger economic crisis in the future. ``A 
Second Look at Wasteful Spending'' is a step in the right direction, 
though there is more work to be done. Many of my colleagues in this 
Chamber have supported this concept in the past, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the Gregg amendment.
  As I stated in my maiden speech in 1997, the American people continue 
to demand an end to runaway spending. We need to show the American 
people that we are responsible. I said those words about the balanced 
budget amendment in 1997, and they also hold true for this amendment 
today. By adopting the ``Second Look at Wasteful Spending,'' we would 
show that Congress is willing to take a much needed step toward fiscal 
restraint.
  I stand in full support of this amendment and am proud to be a 
cosponsor. This outstanding amendment is worthy of your consideration 
and support.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Gregg and 
others in supporting this fiscally responsible amendment to provide the 
President authority to perform rescissions to legislation passed by 
Congress. Congress would then be required to review the President's 
recommendation within 8 days and affirm or reject the recommendation. 
Additionally, this amendment correctly requires the money from 
rescissions to be put toward deficit reduction.
  Congress has grappled with the issue of providing the President with 
line-item veto or rescission authority since the original law was 
overturned by the Supreme Court in 1998. In the last Congress, there 
were at least eight bills introduced, including one I authored, 
attempting to provide the President with the authority to review and 
reject objectionable sections of legislation passed by Congress. It is 
my hope that during the 110th Congress we will provide the President 
with this important tool to combat porkbarrel spending and to reduce 
the deficit.
  Just last night, President Bush delivered the annual State of the 
Union Address in which he stressed the need to impose spending 
discipline here in Washington by cutting the number earmarks. He is not 
the only President to address the country about the need to curtail 
wasteful porkbarrel spending.
  In 1988, during his final State of the Union Address, President 
Ronald Reagan discussed the growth of earmarks and asked for line-item 
veto authority for future Presidents. On that evening, President Reagan 
carried with him three pieces of legislation: an appropriations bill 
that was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a budget 
reconciliation bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 pounds; 
and a continuing resolution that was 1,057 pages long and weighed 14 
pounds.
  In reference to the continuing resolution, President Reagan chided 
Congress, stating, ``Most of you in this Chamber didn't know what was 
in this catch-all bill and report.'' President Reagan then explained 
that millions of dollars for items such as cranberry research, 
blueberry research, the study of crawfish, and the commercialization of 
wild flowers were included in the continuing resolution ``tucked away 
behind a little comma here and there.''
  In 1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill because it had 157 
earmarks. In the last Congress, a highway bill with 6,371 special 
projects costing the taxpayers $24 billion was enacted, despite my 
strong opposition. Those and other earmarks passed by Congress included 
$50 million for an indoor rainforest, $500,000 for a teapot museum, 
$350,000 for an Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center, and $223 
million for a ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
  Unfortunately, this earmarking has not been limited to the highway 
bill. Nothing can compare to the out of control earmarking that has 
occurred in the annual appropriations measures during recent years. 
According to data gathered by Congressional Research Service, there 
were 4,126 earmarks in 1994. In 2005, there were 15,877--an increase of 
nearly 400 percent. There was a little good news in 2006, solely due to 
the fact that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill was approved almost 
entirely free of earmarks--an amazing feat given that there were over 
3,000 earmarks the prior year in that bill. Despite this first 
reduction in 12 years, it doesn't change the fact that 2004, 2005, and 
2006 produced the greatest number of earmarks in history.
  Now, let's consider the level of funding associated with those 
earmarks. The amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion 
in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Remarkably, it rose by 34 
percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks

[[Page S1017]]

decreased. Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000 and more than 
tripled in the last 10 years. This is wrong and disgraceful, and we 
urgently need to curtail this seemingly out of control porkbarreling 
practice that has become the norm around here.
  President Reagan would be deeply disturbed to know that almost 20 
years later, the size of spending bills has gotten much, much larger as 
we put more money toward porkbarrel projects. These earmarks have 
allowed the national debt to grow from over $5 trillion when President 
Reagan left office in January 1989 to over $8 trillion today. These 
statistics demonstrate clearly that the need for rescission authority 
is much greater than when President Reagan was in office.
  President Reagan said to Congress during his 1988 State of the Union 
Address, ``Let's help ensure our future of prosperity by giving the 
President a tool that, though I will not get to use, is one I know 
future Presidents of either party must have. Give the President . . . 
the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare away the 
waste, and enforce budget discipline.'' This amendment would do just 
that. It would provide the President authority to identify wasteful 
items of spending and move to eliminate them from the Federal budget. 
This would be a significant and, unfortunately, all too rare move in 
Washington, DC, toward fiscal discipline.
  Rescission authority alone is not the solution to the fiscal crisis 
we face in our Nation's Capitol. We also desperately need to reform our 
earmarking process and our lobbying practices and the legislation the 
Senate passed last week makes a number of positive improvements in 
those areas. But above all, we must remember that it is ultimately 
Congress's responsibility to control spending. However, granting the 
President line-item veto authority would go a long way toward restoring 
credibility to a system ravaged by congressional waste and special 
interest pork.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time status?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 7\1/2\ minutes; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Chair inform me how much time is 
left on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and three-quarter minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator from Massachusetts like to go first?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to wait. I yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on 
this matter. I think this is a well-intentioned amendment, but it does 
virtually nothing about the deficit. What it does do is transfer power 
from the Congress of the United States to the White House. What it will 
set up, I say to my colleagues, with this President perhaps, and with 
some future President for certain, is a circumstance in which the 
President will be able to leverage Members of this body on completely 
unrelated issues because of his unchecked power to line-item veto 
provisions in appropriations bills.
  That is a profound mistake for this body. The Founding Fathers set up 
this separation of power very carefully. They put the power of the 
purse in the Congress. They did that because they were concerned about 
the extraordinary power that the Kings had in Europe. They never wanted 
to replicate that here.
  Mr. President, that is exactly the formula that has helped America be 
the preeminent power in the world--the strongest economic power and the 
strongest military power. We should not alter that relationship by 
granting this increased power to this President or any future 
President.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts 
would give me the courtesy of closing the debate since it is my 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thought it was about our debate on the 
minimum wage, but that is fine. I have 7\1/2\, and the Senator has how 
much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 7 minutes, 
and the other side has a little over 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when I 
have a minute and a half.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are at a very important moment for millions of 
working families in this country. It has been 10 long years since we 
have seen an increase in the minimum wage. During that period of time, 
I don't think anybody in this body could really understand the kind of 
pain and sacrifice these families have experienced and the kind of 
anxiety they have had every day, wondering if they are going to be able 
to provide for themselves and their families, and particularly for 
their children.
  I welcome the fact that it was our Democratic leaders who have this 
now before the Senate. We had a majority in the Senate for an increase, 
but we had the opposition of Republican leadership in the Senate and 
also in the White House. But now we have had 80 Republicans in the 
House of Representatives voting for a stripped-down bill. That is a 
reflection of the bipartisanship we used to have.
  We have seen historically where we had both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents who fought for an increase, including Presidents Roosevelt, 
Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, the first 
President Bush, and Bill Clinton. That is the roster of American 
Presidents in the postwar period. But we have had the strong opposition 
of this President and the Republicans. Its impact has been devastating 
on families.
  If you look at what has happened to families, you will find out that 
the purchasing power of the minimum wage over the period of these 
recent years has just collapsed--almost to the lowest point it has ever 
been in terms of purchasing power. Look into the sixties, seventies, 
and the 1980s. With the Democrats in power, with the help of some 
Republicans, we helped keep it up. It was at the poverty level and it 
collapsed in recent years and we are trying to get it up to $7.25. That 
is still not adequate; nonetheless, it will make a big difference to 
working families, the 41 million Americans--28 percent--who work more 
than 40 hours a week. Nearly one in six workers work more than 50 hours 
a week. People are working longer and harder than ever before.
  If you look at what is happening in the industrial nations, look at 
the United States, we have increased more than any other industrial 
nation in the world. What happened? The wages of the poorest of the 
poor who are out there working 40 hours a week have collapsed, and what 
happened? They have been working longer and harder than ever before.
  What has been happening? They increased productivity for the American 
economy. Look at the past, where you had productivity and the minimum 
wage related year after year. But not now. We have seen the explosion 
of productivity, but do you think any of that has been passed on to 
hard-working people? Absolutely not. We are not going to let those who 
increased the productivity of the American economy share in it. That 
has not been the case.
  We also see the continued loss of workers. What has happened on the 
other side? Who has gotten the increase in the productivity. Imagine 
who: corporate profits grew 65 percent more over this period of time. 
They are the ones who have taken the benefit of the productivity. It 
used to be shared between the workers and corporations. Not anymore. 
They have been the ones who have opposed the increase in the minimum 
wage.
  We have seen what happened, as I pointed out, when we had 
productivity related to the minimum wage. We saw that the minimum wage 
was at the poverty level, and now we have seen it virtually collapse. 
What has been the

[[Page S1018]]

impact on the American families? We have now seen that 4.1 million more 
American families have gone into poverty since 5 years ago. And, 
naturally, we have seen an increased number of children who have gone 
into poverty; 1.2 million more children have gone into poverty over the 
last 5 years, with no raise in the minimum wage.

  Increased numbers of families are struggling and working hard, 
working longer and harder than in any other industrial nation in the 
world, and still they cannot get out of poverty. As a result, we find 
this extraordinary achievement in the United States of America, and we 
have the highest poverty rate of children of any industrialized nation 
in the world. The list goes on.
  We can see this is reflected in the increased number of individuals 
who are suffering in terms of hunger in our country. You can go to food 
banks in my city of Boston--and we have food banks throughout 
Massachusetts and you hear the same thing. We are having to give more 
assistance to families who are working, and more and more of those are 
children living in poverty. It doesn't have to be this way. We are not 
going to answer all of the problems of poverty with this increase. We 
are telling hard-working Americans who work hard and take pride and 
produce that we in the Congress at this time are going to give you a 
very modest raise. They are entitled to it. It is saying to proud men 
and women who are doing a decent job that we recognize that and we 
believe in a society where people move along together.
  This is going to make a difference to children in our society because 
so many children are the children of individuals who work hard and are 
working at minimum wage. It will make a difference to women because the 
great majority of people who benefit from the minimum wage are women. 
So it will benefit women, and it will benefit children, and those 
people who go into the entry level, men and women of color who are 
getting a job. This is a family issue, a values issue, an American 
issue, and it is a fairness issue.
  That is why we want to have a strong vote here with the bare bill 
that sends a very clear message: $7.25 an hour for working families is 
not too much in the richest country in the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for allowing me to 
proceed in this manner. I think people listening may get confused. In 
our discussions, the Senator from Massachusetts is addressing the 
second cloture vote. I am addressing the first one. The second one 
addresses the issue of minimum wage. I am talking about the second look 
at the waste amendment, or enhanced rescission amendment, which is the 
first cloture vote.
  This is not a line-item veto. That pejorative is being thrown at it 
by people who think the line-item veto is inappropriate and transfers 
too much power to the President. That was settled in the 1990s when 
President Clinton was given it, and then it was ruled unconstitutional. 
This is the daughter of Daschle amendment. It is essentially rescission 
language that allows us to take a second look at waste and 
mismanagement that may occur as a result of earmarks being put in 
omnibus bills.
  We talk around here about earmarks and the inappropriateness of some 
of them. This is another opportunity for us to look at inappropriate 
earmarks and to eliminate waste as a result of that. It tracks very 
closely the Daschle language.
  The Senator from North Dakota mentioned three areas where it differs 
from the Daschle language. I don't think any of those three areas are 
substantive.
  The first was on the issue of entitlements. Of course, entitlements 
have to be on the table. The argument that for some reason a global 
agreement on entitlements is going to be undermined by this opportunity 
to take a second look at wasteful spending is a total straw dog. No 
such global agreement would be reached unless this language was also 
addressed and the question of the President's power was addressed.
  Secondly, the idea that a packaging of rescissions will put undue 
pressure on Members to vote for a bad rescission in favor of a good 
rescission because they will be put together is totally specious or 
inaccurate because of the fact that the motion to strike is retained so 
that packages can be broken up.
  As I said earlier, I am going to take the 300 days, if we get this to 
the amendment process, and move it back to 30 days, so that is not an 
issue either.
  This is a question of how we better manage the taxpayers' dollars. It 
is that simple. There is no reason why we should allow inappropriate 
spending to be buried in omnibus bills, as mentioned by the Senator 
from South Carolina, and then never have an opportunity to go back and 
take a look at that inappropriate spending.
  It is such a logical idea that it was voted for by 37 Members of the 
Democratic Party the last time it was on the floor, 20 of whom still 
serve in the Senate. Individuals who voted for essentially this exact 
proposal--not exact, but it is so close it is hard to differentiate--
are still serving in the Senate.
  I hope those individuals will vote for cloture so that we can move on 
and do this very significant piece of reform.
  Is it going to dramatically affect the deficit? I have said it isn't. 
What it is going to do is give us an opportunity to effectively address 
waste mismanagement and inappropriate earmarks that will help the 
deficit because I put the money toward the deficit. I acknowledge it is 
not going to be dramatic sums, but it is better management of the 
American taxpayers' money, and that is our goal.
  It is not unconstitutional. It does not have a constitutional issue 
with it. It has been addressed. In fact, it is a proposal that is so 
reasonable in the area of constitutionality that Senator Byrd, the last 
time this proposal was put forward, said:

       I have no problem with giving the President another 
     opportunity to select from appropriation bills certain items 
     which he feels, for his reasons, whatever they may be, they 
     may be political or for whatever reasons, I have no problem 
     with his sending them to the two Houses and our giving him a 
     vote.

  He is being reasonable. It is a reasonable approach. The idea is 
simply to allow the President to say to us: Listen, I looked at this 
bill; it is spending $400 billion or $500 billion. There is some money 
in here that I don't think should be spent. Why don't you take a 
another look at this, Congress, and if either House says no, we are 
going to spend that money, they can spend it, or if either House 
strikes an item, it gets struck and it is not part of the rescission 
package.
  This is good management. It has been voted out of this Senate before. 
I hope it will be voted out again.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is up.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I guess I will end my statement and ask 
people to vote for cloture.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     Gregg amendment No. 101 to the substitute amendment to H.R. 
     2, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
     provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
         Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Judd Gregg, Craig Thomas, 
           John E. Sununu, James Inhofe, Jon Kyl, Johnny Isakson, 
           Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo, Wayne Allard, Lamar Alexander, 
           John Cornyn, Jim Bunning, John Ensign, David Vitter, 
           Bob Corker.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). By unanimous consent, the 
mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 101, offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. 
Gregg, an amendment to provide Congress a second look at wasteful 
spending by establishing enhanced rescission authority under fast-track 
procedures, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.

[[Page S1019]]

  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Carper
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider and table that vote.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that prior to this vote there be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, what is the issue now that is before 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate before the 
vote on the cloture motion on H.R. 2, a bill to amend the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum 
wage.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam President, we have the opportunity for the first time in 10 
years to pass an increase in the minimum wage that will affect a 
million of our fellow citizens. The workers who work for the minimum 
wage are people of dignity. They take pride in their work. They work 
hard and try to do a job.
  This is a women's issue because the great majority of those who work 
and receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue 
because so many of those women have children. Therefore, it is a family 
issue, it is a value issue, and it is a civil rights issue, because so 
many of those who enter with the minimum wage are men and women of 
color. Most of all, it is a fairness issue. In the United States of 
America, we understand fairness. With the strongest economy in the 
world, for men and women who are going to play by the rules, work 40 
hours a week, they should not live in poverty in the United States of 
America.
  Vote yea on this amendment and we will make a downpayment in bringing 
children, women, and others out of poverty in this Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, for those who have been listening for the 
last 2 days, the argument has not been about whether we would raise the 
minimum wage. There seems to be agreement to raise the minimum wage. 
The difficulty has been how do we take care of some of the impact to 
small business that will result.
  The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, has mentioned that the 
last time we passed the minimum wage, there was a small business tax 
package in it. That somewhat set a little different level for doing 
this kind of action. Incidentally, it was Senator Simpson from Wyoming 
who headed up that effort at that time.
  This bill could have happened earlier if we had some assurance that 
there was going to be this tax package. I congratulate the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for the 
way they have worked together and the way their committee worked 
together to put together a tax package that will benefit small business 
and reduce some of the impacts of the increase in minimum wage. The 
minority just needs some kind of a sense that will be a part of the 
bill, and we can move forward with the whole thing. We are trying to 
make sure we don't put the mom-and-pop businesses and their employees 
out of work and their services lost to the community.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from the 
Coalition For Job Opportunities supporting it.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Coalition for Job Opportunities,

                                                 January 23, 2007.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: As members of the Coalition for Job 
     Opportunities (COJO), we are writing in opposition to the 
     cloture motion filed on H.R. 2 which calls for a federal 
     minimum wage increase to $7.25/hour without any offsetting 
     small business tax provisions. We are very concerned that 
     this 41% increase to the starting wage would severely impact 
     small businesses and cost our economy jobs. While no package 
     of small business measures can completely mitigate the 
     negative impact of a wage hike, we are supportive of the 
     small business tax package approved unanimously in committee 
     last week and believe it must be included with the wage 
     proposal before the Senate.
       A mandated wage hike of this magnitude will cause many 
     small employers to make difficult staffing decisions, in 
     terms of eliminating current positions and postponing plans 
     to create new ones. Due to the last minimum wage increase, 
     our economy experienced significant job losses across 
     multiple sectors.
       Many small businesses operate under a very small profit 
     margin, and a 41% mandated wage hike would have a severe 
     impact on employers at a time they are experiencing other 
     difficult cost challenges. Small employers continue to face 
     steady double-digit health care premium increases, and rising 
     energy costs have also had an impact. Just this month, it was 
     reported that commercial electricity prices have risen nearly 
     10% during the first 10 months of 2006.
       We urge you to strongly consider the vital role that small 
     employers play in our economy as job providers. An increase 
     in the starting wage will stifle job creation, directly 
     affecting employment opportunities for low-skilled, entry 
     level workers. We therefore urge you to oppose this mandated 
     wage increase and to allow market forces to create and 
     sustain more jobs.
           Sincerely,
         National Restaurant Association, National Federation of 
           Independent Business, National Retail Federation, 
           National Association of Convenience Stores, American 
           Hotel and Lodging Association, American Beverage 
           Licensees, Bowling Proprietors' Association of America, 
           Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations, Food 
           Marketing Institute, International Association of 
           Amusement Parks and Attractions, International 
           Foodservice Distributors Association, International 
           Franchise Association, International Pizza Hut 
           Franchise Holders Association, Kentucky Fried Chicken 
           Franchisee Association, National Association of Chain 
           Drug Stores, National Association of Theatre Owners, 
           National Club Association, National Council of 
           Agricultural Employers, National Council of Chain 
           Restaurants, National Franchisee Association, National 
           Grocers Association, Printing Industries of America, 
           Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Society of 
           American Florists, Tire Industry Association.
                                  ____



                            U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, January 23, 2007.
       Dear Senator: The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, as the 
     nation's leading voice for over 2 million Hispanic-owned 
     businesses and over 200 chambers nationwide, urges your 
     support for providing significant small business tax relief 
     as a key component of S. 2, the Minimum Wage Act of 2007.
       Small and disadvantaged businesses create 75 percent of new 
     U.S. jobs annually, but they are also responsible for the 
     majority of job losses each year. These important statistics 
     demonstrate why we must provide assistance to these 
     struggling businesses. According to the Small Business 
     Administration, 590,000 new businesses were established in 
     1998, and 565,000 of them employed fewer than 20 workers. 
     However, 541,000 firms went

[[Page S1020]]

     out of business that year, and more than 94 percent of them 
     had 20 workers or less. Small businesses already encounter a 
     growing number of rising costs for doing business such as 
     double digit health care premium increases and increased 
     energy costs.
       As an organization that understands and represents the 
     interests and concerns of Hispanic-owned businesses, we urge 
     you to provide a comprehensive response that includes small 
     business tax relief as an integral part of this legislation. 
     We look forward to working with you to achieve this goal.
           Sincerely,
                                               David C. Lizarraga,
                                     Chairman, Board of Directors.
                                               Michael L. Barrera,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                                         NFIB,

                                                 January 22, 2007.
     Sen. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
     Sen. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell: 
     On behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business 
     (NFIB), the nation's leading small-business advocacy group, I 
     am writing to urge you to include critical small-business 
     relief as part of any minimum-wage legislation that passes 
     the U.S. Senate.
       During Senate consideration of H.R. 2, a bill that raises 
     the minimum wage by $2.10, please be mindful that small-
     business owners oppose the wage hike because it would leave 
     them with fewer choices in how they compensate their 
     employees and when they decide to hire new ones. Wage hikes 
     historically have had a negative impact on certain industries 
     that offer the most entry-level jobs--including restaurants, 
     grocery, and retail stores--many of which are run by small-
     business owners.
       We were encouraged that the Senate Finance Committee took 
     an important step in this debate by passing the Small 
     Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill contains 
     growth-oriented tax relief that allows small businesses to 
     invest and stay competitive. We hope that you can continue in 
     this direction during debate on the floor.
       In addition, should you decide to consider any additional 
     revenue offsets, I hope you will be mindful of the 
     consequences of any tax increases on small businesses. While 
     revenue offsets may serve to restrain fiscal spending, any 
     other possible burdens on small businesses--in addition to 
     the wage hike--will be harmful to the continued growth of 
     this very important industry.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and we look 
     forward to working with you as the 110th Congress moves 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Danner,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                              National Restaurant Association,

                                                 January 23, 2007.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Restaurant 
     Association and the 935,000 restaurant locations nationwide, 
     we are writing in opposition to cloture on H.R. 2 the 
     underlying minimum wage bill which does not include the small 
     business tax package unanimously approved in committee last 
     week. Our association cannot support a wage increase given 
     its impact on jobs in our industry, and we strongly believe 
     that any minimum wage increase must include small business 
     tax relief in order to mitigate the negative impact of a 
     mandated wage hike. The cloture vote on the underlying 
     ``clean'' minimum wage bill will be considered a ``key vote'' 
     by the National Restaurant Association.
       Restaurants are acutely impacted by an increase to the 
     starting wage, and it is important to protect the jobs our 
     industry provides. Nearly half of all adults have worked in 
     the restaurant industry at some point during their lives, and 
     32 percent of adults got their first job experience in a 
     restaurant. For many, restaurant jobs lead to management and 
     ownership opportunities: 8 out of 10 salaried employees have 
     started as hourly employees.
       The restaurant industry plays a critical role in providing 
     jobs to the U.S. economy. By the year 2017, we are expected 
     to create an additional 2 million positions. If we are to 
     fulfill this expectation, we urge you to include relief 
     targeted to those industries that pay the starting wage.
       We urge you to oppose cloture on the underlying base 
     minimum wage bill (H.R. 2). The cloture vote on H.R. 2 will 
     be treated as a key vote by the National Restaurant 
     Association.
           Sincerely,
                                               Steven C. Anderson,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                                         John Gay,
      Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and Public Policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask my colleagues to vote no on cloture.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No. 
     5, H.R. 2, providing for an increase in the Federal minimum 
     wage.
         Ted Kennedy, Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel Inouye, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Jeff Bingaman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jack Reed, 
           Barbara Boxer, Daniel K. Akaka, Max Baucus, Patty 
           Murray, Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkin, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Robert Menendez, Tom Carper, Harry Reid, Charles 
           Schumer, Richard Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 2, 
a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, to provide for an 
increase in the Federal minimum wage, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Carper
     Johnson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 54, the nays 
are 43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the time is moving on. If people wish to 
offer amendments, this is the time to do it. I know there are Members 
tied up in committees. If someone feels strongly about an amendment, 
someone managing on the minority side can offer it, someone here can 
offer amendments for the majority, if there are amendments they wish to 
offer and simply can't be here. We would like to get this set up so we 
can start voting on amendments. Vote on a Democrat amendment, a 
Republican amendment or vice versa. Let's move on.
  Some of these votes are not pleasant. They are tough votes. That is 
why we are here. The sooner we move to start voting, the better off we 
are going to be. If it comes to a period in the next 24 hours that 
Members are not going to offer amendments, there is little alternative 
but I will have to offer another cloture motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say to my good friend, the majority leader, 
there are two Senators, Senator Allard and Senator Smith, in the 
Chamber prepared to offer amendments now.
  I concur with him. Those who have amendments should come forward and 
offer them. We have two Republican Senators ready to do that as we 
speak.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S1021]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able, after 
Senator Smith and Senator Allard have offered their amendments, and 
also Senator Reed, who was here earlier than I, to be able to offer a 
bipartisan amendment on a matter of critical importance to all from 
timber-producing States that deals with funding for schools and roads. 
I ask unanimous consent to be able to offer that bipartisan amendment 
after Senator Smith has offered his amendment, after Senator Allard has 
offered his amendment and after Senator Reed has had an opportunity to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 113 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I call up amendment numbered 113, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 113.

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 113

 (Purpose: To make permanent certain education-related tax incentives)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EDUCATION-RELATED TAX 
                   INCENTIVES.

       (a) Repeal of Sunset on Affordable Education Provisions.--
     Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
     Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions of such Act) 
     shall not apply to title IV of such Act (relating to 
     affordable education provisions).
       (b) Permanent Extension of Above-the-Line Deduction for 
     Certain Expenses of Elementary and Secondary School 
     Teachers.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``In the 
     case of taxable years beginning during 2002, 2003, 2004, 
     2005, 2006, or 2007, the deductions'' and inserting ``The 
     deductions''.

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. My amendment would make permanent 
existing education tax benefits that are set to expire in the near 
future.
  I am a big supporter of the Republican progrowth tax policies that 
have been implemented over the past few years. These policies have had 
a tremendous impact on our economy. Since August 2003, more than 7.2 
million jobs have been created.
  Our unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent, which is well below 
the 5.1 percent average rate for 2005, and below the average of each of 
the past four decades.
  And thanks to our strong economic growth, tax revenues continue to 
pour in. Tax receipts in December were $18 billion higher than a year 
earlier.
  My amendment focuses on an important component of the Bush tax cuts--
education tax benefits. This amendment would make permanent a number of 
important tax provisions that make it easier for Americans to save for 
college and pay for their children's education expenses.
  Educating our citizens is critical if we want to remain competitive 
in the global economy. But as tuition costs continue to escalate, it 
has become more and more difficult for American families to cover these 
expenses on their own.
  The education tax benefits that have been enacted over the past few 
years will help American families meet these obligations. Therefore, it 
is important that we don't let these tax benefits expire.
  My amendment would make permanent the deduction for qualified tuition 
and related expenses which is set to expire at the end of 2007. The 
2001 tax act created this new deduction which allows middle-income 
Americans to take a deduction for higher education expenses of up to 
$4,000.
  In 2004, over 4.5 million American families took advantage of this 
deduction. And in my home state of Oregon, almost 65,000 families used 
the deduction.
  In addition, if certain requirements are satisfied, an employee can 
exclude from gross income up to $5,250 annually of educational 
assistance provided by an employer. This exclusion applies to both 
graduate and undergraduate courses.
  Because of this favorable tax treatment, many employers provide their 
employees with educational assistance. However, the exclusion will not 
be available after December 31, 2010. My amendment would make this 
provision permanent.
  Coverdell education savings accounts are an important tool for 
Americans to save for future education expenses. The 2001 tax act made 
a number of reforms to enhance these accounts. For example, it 
increased the annual contribution limit to $2,000 from $500 and 
expanded the definition of qualified expenses to include elementary and 
secondary school expenses.
  However, like the exclusion for employer provided educational 
assistance, these enhancements expire after 2010. My amendment would 
make these enhancements permanent.
  Finally, the recently enacted tax extenders package extended the 
deduction for educator expenses through 2007. This provision provides a 
$250 per year above-the-line deduction for teachers for expenses paid 
for supplies, such as books and computer equipment.
  Teaching is one of the most important professions in our society. And 
this provision provides teachers with a little help in purchasing the 
supplies they need to be good teachers.
  In Oregon, over 33,000 teachers benefited from this deduction in 
2003. And my amendment would make this provision permanent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 116 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside and I call up amendment numbered 116 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 116.

  Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 116

  (Purpose: To afford States the rights and flexibility to determine 
                             minimum wage)

       At the end of section 2, add the following:
       (c) State Flexibility.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) State Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, an employer shall not be required 
     to pay an employee a wage that is greater than the minimum 
     wage provided for by the law of the State in which the 
     employee is employed and not less than the minimum wage in 
     effect in that State on January 1, 2007.''.

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to 
support amendment No. 116, which I will discuss.
  This amendment allows States the rights and flexibility to determine 
a minimum wage that works for them. Every State has its own 
microeconomy, and the voters and legislatures in those areas have 
decided what works best.
  This is reflected in a map I have for demonstration purposes, 
reflecting the number of States in green that have higher wage rates 
than the minimum Federal rate. It reflects in blue the States with wage 
rates the same as the Federal rate. We have American Samoa, which has a 
special minimum wage rate, and States with no minimum wage rate, which 
are very few, by the way. They rely on the Federal, in that case, where 
they do not have one. And States with a minimum wage rate lower than 
the Federal, again, the State is preempted.
  I rise to point out that the merits of increasing the Federal minimum 
wage, for better or for worse, for days on end--there is no debate on 
the cost of living, and wages greatly differ from State to state.
  In its current form, the bill attempts to blindly blanket the Nation 
with a new Federal minimum wage without

[[Page S1022]]

regard to unique economic conditions of each individual State. 
Effective on January 1 of this year, my own home State of Colorado 
increased its wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.85 an hour. But they went 
further than that. This new wage will adjust annually with inflation as 
measured by the Consumer Price Index in my own State--in this case, the 
State of Colorado.
  During the course of the 109th Congress, the Senate considered a 
range of different minimum wage proposes. I evaluated each on a case-
by-case basis. As a former small business owner, I recognize the 
financial challenges many families face, both those who are employed by 
the small business, as well as those struggling to keep their small 
business working. I also recognize the importance of small business to 
our Nation's economy and the chilling effect that increasing operating 
costs can have on the growth and ability to create jobs.
  In my small business, for example, I hired a large percentage of 
employees whose first job was working for me. I was able to incorporate 
them into my business because, in some cases, because of their lack of 
job experience, I was willing to bring them in at a relatively low 
wage, give them an opportunity to improve themselves, which usually 
didn't take long--a month, 2 or maybe 3 months--and then begin to 
increase their wages as they increased their performance. This helped 
for morale in the business, and they felt like they were treated 
fairly. And it worked out very well.
  We ran into problems when I was forced to raise the minimum wage, and 
I had to look at those employees in my small business who were full-
time employees and expand the responsibilities of what my expectations 
were during their time of employment, at the expense of part-timers, 
and I laid off a few part-timers in the process, until I was able to 
grow the business a little more and I was able to begin to bring on 
some of the part-time employees again.
  That is my personal experience and that reflects my view on 
increasing the minimum wage and why I think it has an adverse effect, 
particularly on those trying to move into the workforce. I have long 
been a supporter of legislation to help small businesses, and I do not 
wish to overburden our small businesses. Last year, I supported Senator 
Enzi's small business health plan legislation to give small business 
and their employees relief from health care costs. I supported this 
bill as a way to help small business and will continue to support such 
good ideas in the future.
  In my view, in order to stimulate economic growth and create better 
paying jobs, Congress should implement programs aimed at reducing taxes 
and Government regulations on small business. Less Government 
intervention, at all levels, enables the private sector to attract, 
recruit, and retain the best possible employees and reward increased 
productivity and responsibility with higher compensation.
  Although I believe the market is capable of setting wages, States are 
better equipped than the Federal Government to determine what is a fair 
and equitable standard wage for their workforce because of their own 
economy within that State.
  As my chart shows, letting States take the lead on this issue is 
working. According to the Department of Labor, as of January 1, 2007, 
the majority of States have opted to increase the minimum wage over the 
federally mandated $5.15 an hour.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, 28 States plus the 
District of Columbia have minimum wages above the Federal level in 
2007. Washington State has the highest minimum wage at $7.93 an hour. 
Several States, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Oregon, have 
raised their minimum wage beyond $7.50 an hour.
  If we are going to do this and do this right, we should be cautious 
in Federally mandating a one-size-fits-all minimum wage. We should 
allow States to take into consideration the needs of their economy. We 
should give States the rights and flexibility to set their own minimum 
wage. Costs of living and wages vary dramatically State to State. What 
is right for Wyoming is not necessarily what is right for 
Massachusetts. Imposing dramatic increases to the minimum wage on 
States poses a threat to local economies. States are better positioned 
than the Federal Government to set a wage that works best for their 
workforce. Whether the need is above or below the proposed $2.10 
increase, State officials should have the right to decide. Local 
legislators are in touch with the business community and I think better 
represent the needs of the local labor markets. Allowing the minimum 
wage to be set by State legislatures is a better alternative to a 
Federal mandate. My amendment simply affirms the traditional definition 
of States rights and allows respective State legislatures the 
flexibility to determine employee pay benefits.
  Let's allow the States to have a say and decide what is right for 
them. They are the closest to the people. Let's give States the right 
and flexibility to regulate minimum wage. A one-size-fits-all unfunded 
Federal mandate is not the answer to protecting America's economic 
security. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment 
which gives States the flexibility to determine what is best for their 
citizens.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 104 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, if the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado is finished, I ask unanimous consent to set aside his 
amendment and call up an amendment I offer with Senator Smith and 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Mr. 
     Smith, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 104 to amendment No. 100.

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
                       Determination Act of 2000)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXTENSION OF SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY 
                   SELF-DETERMINATION ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Secure Rural Schools and Community 
     Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public 
     Law 106-393) is amended in sections 101(a), 102(b)(2), 
     103(b)(1), 203(a)(1), 207(a), 208, 303, and 401 by striking 
     ``2006'' each place it appears and inserting ``2007''.
       (b) Termination of Authority.--
       (1) Special projects on federal lands.--Section 208 of the 
     Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 
     2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393) is amended in 
     the second sentence by striking ``2007'' and inserting 
     ``2008''.
       (2) County projects.--Section 303 of the Secure Rural 
     Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 
     U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2008''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in much of our country that is dependent 
on natural resources, there is a world of hurt today. There are 
tremendous concerns in many of our rural communities about how we are 
going to finance their schools and roads. In my State, more than 50 
percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. So we are not 
in a position to pay for schools and roads and essential services the 
way much of the rest of the country does because there, through 
transactions that occur on private property, they are able to generate 
the funds they need to pay for essential services.
  When Senator Smith and I go home, we are faced with a very different 
situation. Because a law I wrote a number of years ago with Mr. Craig, 
the distinguished Senator from Idaho, expired at the end of the year, 
we are seeing a number of our local communities face Draconian cuts in 
essential services.
  The layoff announcements are going on right now as local districts 
and local communities come together and wrestle with how they are going 
to make the difficult choices with respect to funding essential 
services. Cuts in excess of 70 percent of discretionary funding are 
going to cripple one of our counties in rural Oregon, southern Oregon, 
Douglas County, which currently receives about 43 percent of its annual

[[Page S1023]]

budget from the law I authored with Senator Craig.
  Another of our counties, Jackson County, again in southern Oregon, is 
prepared to shut down all of its libraries. That will be coming up very 
shortly.
  In Curry County, they are looking at the prospect of laying off all 
nonessential workers, including patrol officers, some of whom would be 
left to perform only the mandated corrections duties. By June, 20 
percent of the county workforce in Curry County will have been cut. So 
it is not clear with these cuts whether the county will even be able to 
continue to be a county, as it will not be able to provide a minimum 
level of services.
  Road department levels are going to be reduced in areas such as 
Josephine County and Linn County.
  I am going to be having community meetings this weekend on the Oregon 
coast.
  Tillamook County is looking at layoffs in the sheriff's department 
and cuts to its road maintenance, jeopardizing roads that are critical 
to getting sawlogs to the mills and having family-wage jobs for workers 
in my State.
  Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer join me in this. There are 
stories like this from across the country. Over 700 counties in 39 
States have received critical funding from the county payments program. 
The fact is, in a State such as ours, where the Federal Government owns 
more than 50 percent of the land in many of these small communities 
with tiny populations, they are not going to be able to make it without 
these funds that are a lifeline in terms of law enforcement and schools 
and essential road and transportation services.
  This is my top priority--my top priority--for my State in this 
session, to try to make sure these funds are reauthorized. In this 
particular amendment, Senator Smith and Senator Boxer and Senator 
Feinstein and I want to reauthorize the program for 1 year. But I am 
also introducing legislation for a long-term reauthorization because I 
think we ought to get these counties off the roller coaster once and 
for all.
  This is based on an approach that was adopted many years ago with 
States that had widespread Federal ownership getting funds that related 
to timber receipts. As a result of the environmental laws, those 
receipts went down, and we needed this law to ensure that those 
counties would survive.
  So the county payments legislation is supported by a diverse 
coalition, including the National Association of Counties and a number 
of labor organizations.
  If Senators, particularly in rural communities, look now--as I have 
been in townhall meetings and other kinds of gatherings--at how we are 
going to support schools and roads and basic local government, I would 
only say that without this program, this will hit local communities 
like a wrecking ball. It is something that should not be abided by this 
Senate.
  I see my colleague from Oregon, my partner in this and many other 
issues, standing, and I would like to yield at this time. After Senator 
Smith has completed his remarks, I will wrap up very briefly. I would 
also note that Senator Reed was here earlier, and I was not aware that 
he was in the queue as well, and I want him to be able to speak soon in 
a way that is convenient for him.
  So I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank my colleague, Mr. President.
  I join Senator Wyden in saying this is my No. 1 priority as well. It 
is an emergency. It is not a natural disaster, but it is related to 
natural resources. It is a disaster that has been in the making through 
the course of a decade and more of Congresses, courts, and, obviously, 
the effort of the Clinton administration to reduce timber harvest on 
public lands in the Pacific Northwest. That has created a circumstance 
in the Pacific Northwest that Senator Wyden and I seek to address. We 
do so because it is such an emergency. We have to look for every 
opportunity, every train that is leaving the station, to bring this to 
the attention of Congress and to get it to President Bush, who has said 
he will sign an extension.
  For the benefit of the record, let me indicate some of the history of 
this issue. All of this was done with the best of intentions as it 
relates to natural resources and the management of public lands. It was 
done to benefit the spotted owl, threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act. I should add that after 15 years of negligible 
harvest on public lands, the owl is still not recovering and its 
habitat is being incinerated by catastrophic wildfire.
  Whether tacit or intentional, those management decisions have caused 
severe costs that are borne on the backs of those who can least afford 
it. These people and communities need relief as much as those burdened 
by other disasters, such as hurricanes or tidal waves.
  The timber war has had many casualties. It has been a catastrophe for 
rural communities. County governments, colleagues, receive a share of 
timber receipts from Federal lands--25 percent from the Forest Service 
and 50 percent from BLM. The State Senator Wyden and I represent is 
more than 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. What you have, 
therefore, is timber-locked communities.
  For generations, these timber receipts have provided funds to offset 
the fact that local communities cannot tax the Federal Government. It 
makes up the vast majority of their funds to operate their counties, 
their schools, public safety. When timber harvest evaporated, so did 
county budgets.
  In 1999, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Craig from Idaho, myself, 
and others came to this floor to describe what was happening to rural 
Oregon. Schools went to 4 days a week. They dropped sports and 
extracurricular activities and curtailed other programs. Communities 
were forced to make heartbreaking decisions over whether to cut social 
service programs or school funding or to sharply reduce sheriffs' 
patrols and close jails.
  Fortunately, Congress created a safety net in the Secure Rural 
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This provided 
funding to counties based on historic rather than current timber 
harvest levels, and it kept them afloat until the Federal timber 
program stabilized--a stabilization for which we are still awaiting.
  I realize other States may think Oregon receives too much assistance 
under this program; however, I would ask, what other Federal disaster 
assistance is not allocated based on the intensity and location of the 
disaster? You go where the problem exists. Between 1987 and 2002, 
Federal timber harvest in Oregon dropped 96 percent. That is an annual 
shortfall of enough wood to build over 235,000 homes.
  Without a county payment safety net, here is an example of what my 
county commissioners are facing. Curry County, located on the southern 
Oregon coast, has an annual general fund of $7.7 million. The safety 
net accounts for over $4 million of that $7 million. The county is not 
legally able to raise property taxes, but it is constitutionally bound 
to fund administrative and law enforcement functions. Curry County has 
11,000 homes. To replace the safety net funding with new property 
taxes, it would need over 35,000 new homes valued at $345,000 each. 
That is not going to happen. With only 22,000 residents and 1.43 
percent of its land available for development, this is simply an 
impossibility.
  But the safety net is not just about Oregon counties. In the life of 
the legislation, California received $308 million; Idaho, $102 million; 
Montana, $63.4 million.
  That program expired on our watch 4 months ago. Now rural counties 
across the Nation are dangling on an economic tightrope without a 
safety net to catch them. My colleague from Oregon and I have left no 
stone unturned to find money for an extension. Those efforts have been 
unsuccessful. We stand here with our timber-dependent counties at the 
mercy, once more, of the Federal Government. If we do not extend the 
safety net, many counties in my State stand to lose nearly 70 percent 
of their general and road funds.
  Preparations are already underway to close public libraries, pink 
slips to thousands of county employees will soon be in the mail, vital 
search-and-rescue operations will be curtailed. The Nation has seen 
these search-and-rescue operations go tragically in several cases 
recently on national TV.
  Oregon has lived with devastating Federal mandates on our forests, 
but

[[Page S1024]]

we cannot live with an instant evisceration of our public services. 
That cannot be the rural legacy of this Congress.
  My colleague from Oregon and I have filed this amendment to the 
minimum wage bill to provide a 1-year extension of the safety net. It 
is only fitting that as we consider raising wages for workers in the 
private sector, we address the very future of jobs and services in the 
public sector.
  We are also introducing legislation for a full reauthorization, and 
we will make every attempt at every opportunity in this Congress to 
turn back the tide that is quickly approaching rural communities and 
counties across the Nation. We can prevent this natural disaster, a 
natural disaster that has a human component. I join with my colleague 
to express our determination and thank him for his leadership, his 
authorship of this in the first instance, and of our mutual 
determination for the sake of our State to right this wrong.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for his comments and his 
thoughtfulness. Before I make my concluding remarks on our amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent for Senator Jack Reed to speak after I have 
concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. To wrap up briefly, Senator Smith has stated it well. I am 
very honored to represent Oregon in the Senate. I have been able to get 
into a host of issues that I think are important, particularly as a 
member of the Finance Committee, to fix health care and fix the out-of-
whack American tax system. I serve on the Intelligence Committee. But 
Senator Smith and I have said this is our most important issue for our 
State for this session because, without this funding, there is a real 
question about whether these local communities can hang on. They simply 
have no other options. You are not going to be able to go to a small 
resource-dependent community in eastern Oregon and set up a 
biotechnology company in the next few weeks. It is not going to happen. 
I support those kinds of industries and economic development, as does 
my colleague. It has been a big part of our bipartisan agenda. But we 
are talking about survival for these rural communities. This will be 
our top priority for this session.
  This has also made a great contribution in terms of bringing together 
people of differing views on natural resources. As part of the 
legislation that I authored with Senator Craig a number of years ago--
as Senator Smith has noted--we set up resource advisory committees so 
that you now have folks in the timber industry talking to 
environmentalists who in the past were, for the most part, spending 
their days in the courthouses suing each other. Now they are working 
together to cooperate through the legislation that we have put in 
place. This has been recognized as a wildly successful natural 
resources law, bringing about cooperation that, prior to this law going 
into effect, was seen virtually nowhere.
  It is a stable, consistent source of funding for communities that 
have nowhere else to turn, affecting communities in 39 States, but it 
is also a program that has brought together a unique kind of 
cooperation between people in the natural resources area who in the 
past would spend an awful lot of time running what I call a lawyers 
full employment program, essentially suing each other in the Federal 
courthouse.
  We are going to be back on the floor for whatever number of times it 
takes to get this program reauthorized and take these rural communities 
off this roller coaster. They ought to be able to know that they can 
survive, and they can survive as they have over many years through a 
program that was tied to the unique consideration that the Federal 
Government owns most of our land. That is what this is all about. This 
is different than how people may pay for schools and roads and 
essential services in parts of the eastern United States where there is 
little Federal ownership.
  We ask that the Senate not ignore the plight of rural America, 
particularly the rural West, as we continue forward with the 
legislative calendar.


                      Amendment No. 104 Withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent that this bipartisan amendment be withdrawn. 
We will be back another day. But I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment I have offered be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden for arranging for my 
time. I rise to address my strong support for the increase in the 
minimum wage that we are debating today in this Chamber. Minimum wage 
workers deserve this long overdue raise. The minimum wage, which today 
stands at $5.15 per hour under Federal law, hasn't increased since 
1997. Since then, inflation has entirely eroded that pay raise. In the 
meantime, the pay of CEOs of large corporations has increased to an 
average of $10.5 billion per year, about 369 times the average wages of 
a worker and 821 times the average wage of a minimum wage worker. That 
discrepancy, that disparity, that growing bifurcation between the very 
well compensated and struggling families in America cannot be tolerated 
any longer.
  This legislation would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 over the next 
2 years. This measure is important because workers have been left out 
of the economic growth that we have seen so far in this limited 
recovery that we are experiencing. Strong productivity growth has 
translated into higher profits for businesses, not more take-home pay 
for workers. And this is not just the low, entry-level workers. This is 
very far up the income range for working Americans. The stagnation of 
earnings in the face of soaring prices for health care, education, and 
food is squeezing the ability of families to meet their demands, of 
providing opportunities for the children. In fact, for the first time 
in my lifetime, I am beginning to sense that so many people are worried 
whether their children will be able to enjoy the same level of progress 
of income, of housing that they have, a fact that they took for 
granted.
  No one who works full time should have to live in poverty, but the 
current minimum wage is not enough to bring even a single parent with 
one child over the poverty line, even if the parent works full time 52 
weeks a year. That should never be the case in this country.
  Five million more Americans have fallen into poverty since President 
Bush took office; 37 million Americans are now living in poverty, 
including 13 million children. And we know what the effects of poverty 
on children are. It impedes their ability to succeed in school. It 
deprives them of some of the experiences that we think are essential 
for their progress. Ultimately, it impairs their ability to contribute 
to this country as workers but, more importantly, as citizens, to fully 
participate, to bear the responsibilities of this great country. An 
unacceptably low minimum wage is a key factor in the problem of poverty 
in our country. This measure would go right to that problem in a very 
efficient way.
  People who are working deserve to be rewarded for their work, deserve 
to be out of poverty. Congress is failing to catch up with reality. 
Many States have taken it upon themselves to raise their minimum wage. 
During the election this past November, six States passed ballot 
initiatives--not just a legislative effort but the voice of the people 
of those States--to raise the minimum wage. Today 29 States and the 
District of Columbia have minimum wages above the Federal level, 
anywhere from $6.15 per hour to $7.93 per hour. In addition, the States 
of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Florida have gone so far as to 
index the minimum wage to the rate of inflation, allowing workers to 
share in the benefits of a growing economy.
  Raising the minimum wage will make a real difference for working 
families, putting an additional $4,400 per year in their pockets. 
Almost two-thirds of those who would benefit are adult workers, more 
than a third of whom are the sole breadwinners for their families. More 
than 6 million children would benefit from this raise that their 
parents would receive.
  One of the fundamental principles of our country and our economy is 
that people should be able to support their families by their efforts, 
by their labors, by their works. That is when the

[[Page S1025]]

economy is working well. That is the reality. Here we have a situation 
where there are people working two jobs sometimes, working 40 and 50 
hours a week, who still don't have sufficient income to meet the 
demands of the family. Here in this country we should at least be able 
to guarantee to someone that if they are working that hard, they should 
at least be able to support their family out of poverty. That is at the 
core of what we are trying to do today.
  While the minimum wage has remained stagnant--because it is not just 
a question of how much a family earns; it is also a question of how 
much they must pay to support the basic demands of life--we have seen, 
for example, health insurance premiums increase 87 percent since 2000 
alone. How does one afford health care if your wages don't go up? These 
premiums now average roughly $11,000 per year, and that is more than 
the annual wages of a full-time minimum wage worker. Clearly, they are 
not going to be buying health insurance policies. And, by the way, I 
don't think they are going to be able to take advantage of the 
President's proposal for a tax deduction because, simply, they are not 
able to buy the health insurance in the first place, nor are they able 
to wait a year to get a tax deduction on a tax liability that is 
probably close to zero, if not, in fact, zero.
  Additionally, if you look at college tuition, another aspect of 
family life which is part of the American dream, the notion, again, 
that you can go ahead and ensure or help at least your children to do 
better, to go to college, one of the things that recent economic 
studies have shown is that because we do not have the full access and 
affordability of college, the class structure is becoming more rigid. 
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, if you were predicting the income of a son 
based on his father's income, the correlation was somewhere at 20, 30, 
40 percent. Today it is 60 percent. If you are a wealthy parent, you 
will probably have wealthy children. But the reverse is also true; if 
you are a low-income worker, the chances of your son or daughter rising 
to the top in this economy are much less than they were 40 and 50 years 
ago. Horatio Alger is not alive and well in America today as he once 
was.
  This economy has to be more representative of giving people a chance 
to move up. The key to that, or one of the significant keys, is access 
to higher education. We have to do more. One thing at least we can do, 
if the prices of higher education are rising so much, is certainly to 
at least raise wages and raise the minimum wage.
  Every day the minimum wage is not increased it continues to leave 
workers behind because inflation continues unabated at levels that are 
modest in terms of historical comparisons, but it still is eating away 
at that existing minimum wage. Today the real value of the minimum wage 
is more than $4 below what it was in 1968. Think of that. In 1968, we 
could afford to pay much higher wages to those people engaged in 
minimum wage work, and it didn't upset our economy. To have the 
purchasing power that it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be 
more than $9.37 an hour, not $5.15 as it is today, or even $7.25. If we 
could do it in 1968, why can't we do it today?
  History also suggests that raising the minimum wage does not have a 
negative impact on jobs. You will hear a lot of people say this is 
going to distort the employment numbers, and it is going to inhibit 
employment.
  In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase passed in 1997, 
the economy experienced the strongest growth in over three decades. We 
have not seen that kind of growth since the late nineties or during 
this administration. But following the last increase, nearly 12 million 
new jobs were added, at a pace of about 248,000 a month. In contrast, 
in the most recent 4-year period, the minimum wage has remained 
stagnant and only a small fraction of that number of jobs has been 
created. Because of the increase in productivity, because of the fact 
that workers are more effective, they should be able to be compensated 
more. That is not happening as it should.
  Working families are struggling to meet their most basic needs, and a 
fair increase in the wage floor is the right direction to take for this 
Congress. I am disappointed that our most recent efforts to clearly and 
simply raise the minimum wage are being linked to other provisions. 
American families deserve the much needed boost that this raise will 
provide. They deserve to hear a clear signal from this Senate that we 
are on their side, they are not an afterthought to be added to other 
provisions.
  Mr. President, this is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to work as 
quickly as possible to pass the minimum wage increase.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud today to rise in support of 
the working men and women of this country. I am proud to speak for an 
idea whose time has long since come: Our lowest paid workers--people 
who drive this economy--deserve a raise. I will be proud to vote for a 
bill that gives them a raise, a bill that increases the minimum wage 
from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.
  This raise is years overdue. Right now, the purchasing power of the 
minimum wage is at its lowest level in more than half a century, since 
Dwight Eisenhower was President and Bill Haley and the Comets topped 
the charts. The value of the current wage is 30 percent lower than it 
was 25 years ago.
  I know a little something about earning minimum wage. I have had a 
number of minimum wage-type jobs--as a carhop, a highway worker, and as 
a pie cutter. If there are other pie cutters in the Senate, I would 
like to meet them. Of course, I was also a waitress to help pay for 
school. My career as a waitress came to an abrupt end when I spilled 12 
ice teas on one customer. That is when I decided to go to law school. 
But I can tell you that job taught me how important it is for our 
leaders to look out for minimum wage workers.
  Today, nearly 15 million American workers--more than 10 percent of 
the workforce--are counting on us to help them get a fairer wage. 
Almost 7 million of them would directly benefit because their hourly 
pay is below $7.25 an hour. Another 8 million with wages slightly above 
this level would also get a much needed boost.
  In my State, Minnesota, more than 200,000 people are waiting for 
Congress to do its job.
  Lifting the minimum wage is the fair thing to do. Working class 
families are getting left behind, even as corporations see record 
profits and corporate executives and the superwealthy see record 
salaries. If the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the 
salary increases for CEOs, the rate would now be more than $23 an hour.
  This is not just about kids working at fast food places, though they 
certainly deserve a better deal, too. Eighty percent of workers who 
would benefit from this bill are age 20 or older. More than half work 
full time. More than a third are their family's sole earners.
  The bill we are debating today provides real relief to these workers 
and their families. Even as the purchasing power of the minimum wage 
has gone down, costs for working families have gone up, and they are 
still rising. Health care costs in our State have gone up 80 percent in 
the last 6 years. College tuition at the University of Minnesota has 
gone up 80 percent in the past 7 years. It is getting tougher to afford 
a house and to go to school. And gas prices are always a concern.
  Wherever I go in Minnesota, I see people struggling with the brutal 
combination of declining real wages and increasing costs. At the lunch 
counters, gas stations, in the big cities, and at county fairs they 
talk about the need for help. This is the time for us to give them that 
help.
  Lifting the minimum wage is also the principled thing to do. A raise 
means more money to these working families, and it sends a signal that 
we, as a community, value hard work and we insist on a fair deal for 
all Americans. That is a signal that the old leadership in Washington 
failed to send. With this bipartisan bill, we can tell our workers that 
we stand for the hard-working people of America.
  Lifting the minimum wage is also the smart thing to do. It will 
decrease poverty, increase family buying power, and strengthen the 
consumer base in our communities. Some like to say that a minimum wage 
increase kills

[[Page S1026]]

jobs. People have consistently made this argument when the minimum wage 
is debated. They have consistently been wrong. States that have raised 
their own minimum wages have not seen job losses, and many have 
actually outperformed the rest of the country in job creation.
  A raise would not only have positive economic effects, it will also 
have positive social effects. As a prosecutor, I saw firsthand how 
crime took over communities where people could not make ends meet. When 
people struggled, even after working hard, they often turned to drugs 
or violence or both. I learned how good jobs that pay fair wages can be 
the best crime-fighting tool.
  Lifting the minimum wage is the fair, principled, and smart thing to 
do across the board. But it will also have a particularly powerful 
effect on women. Women make up less than half of the workforce, but 
they make up roughly 60 percent of those who will directly gain from 
this raise. More than 40 percent of these working women have full-time 
jobs.
  Three million working mothers will see a benefit from this 
legislation, including hundreds of thousands of single moms. Many of 
these women work in demanding retail and hospitality jobs--waitresses, 
store clerks, hotel maids-- where they are on their feet or running 
around all day.

  Despite their hard work, they have an almost impossible time making 
ends meet. They struggle to afford health care or college tuition for 
their kids or even basics such as gas and groceries. I am in awe of 
these women. I am a working mother and wife, and I have worked at 
minimum wage, but I have never had to do both at the same time. Today, 
you can do something for them.
  The challenges of working in the hospitality industry raise the final 
issue I would like to talk about today--the so-called tip credit.
  Under current Federal law, tipped employees, including waitresses, 
bellhops, and maids, are entitled to a Federal minimum wage of only 
$2.13 an hour. They have to make up the difference between $2.13 and 
the real minimum wage with their tips.
  States have always been allowed to change this rule. My State, 
Minnesota, similar to several others, has done that. The people of 
Minnesota decided that tipped workers should receive the same minimum 
wage as all other workers. That is now the law of Minnesota and six 
other States. Tipped workers earn the State minimum wage and pay taxes 
on both their wages and their tips.
  Last year, the old Congress tried to take away Minnesota's right to 
enforce this law. The minimum wage bill proposed back then would have 
preempted State law and would have caused Minnesota's tipped wage 
workers' wages to immediately fall by about $4 per hour.
  Thankfully, this provision didn't become law. Unfortunately, some 
people in Congress have talked about trying it again this year. They 
are seeking to pass a provision that limits Minnesota's future right to 
fix a fair wage for tipped workers. They think Washington knows better 
than the people of Minnesota what our State's wage policy should be.
  I oppose these efforts. For one thing, the people of Minnesota had 
good reasons when they eliminated the tip penalty. They saw that tips 
are uncertain income, given at the discretion of the consumer. They 
recognize the hard work and long hours that tipped employees put in. 
They determined that customers give tips to reward service, not to 
directly pay the wages of the people who serve them. They wanted the 
State wage law to reflect these facts.
  The people of Minnesota know about women such as Marie Hanson of 
Rochester. I have spoken with Marie, and her story is the best argument 
I can think of for making sure our tipped workers get fair wages. Marie 
has been a waitress at the Cahler Grand Grill in Rochester for many 
years. She has put two kids through school on her waitress salary, and 
now she is looking to save for her own retirement. If her wages are 
cut, or if she had been paid lower wages these past few years, her 
already difficult task of raising kids and making ends meet would have 
become impossible. For too long, Congress has favored corporations and 
billionaires who stash money in tax shelters in the Cayman Islands. Now 
it is time for Congress to pay attention to women such as Marie Hanson.
  Against this backdrop, Washington should not undo the will of the 
people of Minnesota. States have always had the sovereign right to set 
their own wage policy above a Federal floor and for good reason. We all 
know that States understand the unique conditions and challenges they 
face in a way that Washington never can. And many States, including 
mine, have crafted their own minimum wage laws that are stronger and 
fairer than the current Federal law.
  That is how it should be. If we take away Minnesota's right to 
determine wages for tipped workers, what is next? Will the people who 
are pushing this proposal seek to stop States from setting their own 
higher minimum wages? Will they subvert the will of the people in more 
than 25 States that have stronger laws than the Federal law?
  People who would require Minnesota and like States to impose a tip 
penalty say they are doing it to help small businesses in these States 
compete against small businesses in neighboring States. But the exact 
same argument can be made of a Federal law forbidding all States from 
setting higher minimum wages. Is that the next step? I don't think so.
  As somebody who visited all 87 counties in Minnesota last year, I 
understand very well the importance of small businesses to our 
communities. I wish to make sure that small businesses remain a vibrant 
driver of our economy. I know that the tip penalty concerns of small 
businesses in Minnesota, especially those in towns bordering other 
States, are real and they should not be ignored. But they are not best 
resolved here; they are best resolved much closer to home, in the State 
capital. Washington cannot possibly understand, let alone balance, all 
of the competing concerns that arise in this aspect of State wage 
policy. St Paul, MN, can. That is how it has always worked, and it 
should continue to work this way.
  This is not to say that there are not small business issues common to 
all States that this Congress can address. I have talked with small 
business owners in Rochester and Duluth and Wilmer about the challenges 
they face, including high health care costs. I see the value of giving 
some relief and some incentives to small businesses trying to thrive. 
But Congress should not stop States from protecting tipped workers.
  With all of this in mind, I urge this Chamber to fight for working 
families and especially the working women of this country. I urge this 
Chamber to pass a long-overdue minimum wage increase that doesn't deny 
or limit States historical right to pursue their own wage policy.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 1:28 p.m., recessed until 
1:36 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer 
(Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to 
the distinguished Senator from Maryland for--how much time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. For 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. For 5 minutes, or whatever time she desires, without losing 
my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished 
chairman of

[[Page S1027]]

the Appropriations Committee for so courteously yielding me these 5 
minutes. I know he is eager to bring his own thoughts to the Senate 
floor, and we, of course, are always mesmerized when Senator Byrd 
speaks.
  I rise as an enthusiastic cosponsor of the fair minimum wage 
legislation. Right now, it pays $5.15 an hour. If you add that all up, 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that comes out to $10,700 a year. 
That is $6,000 below the national poverty line. That is a phrase we 
throw around glibly, easily, and in a very facile way. When we use the 
term poverty line--I remember when it was invented by a wonderful woman 
at the Social Security Administration, Molly Orshansky. When we were 
truly fighting a war against poverty, she said: What is the line 
between being able to live a decent, sufficient life? She set it at 
that time, 40 years ago, at $3,000. Now the national poverty line is 
$16,060 for a family of three. That means bare minimum necessities to 
live in the United States of America. It doesn't allow for school 
trips. It doesn't allow for vacations. It is certainly not a latte-
drinking, Volvo-driving minimum wage.
  On top of asking the people who work at this, we are now saying: It 
is OK if a full-time job in the United States of America means full-
time poverty. Where are our guts? Where is our grit? Where is our 
reward for saying that hard work is worth it? That is what we are 
saying now. Hard work should be worth it.
  Now we are raising the minimum wage, and I salute the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his steadfast advocacy on this issue and for speaking 
up on how this is a woman's issue. There is a lot of hand-wringing over 
this raise, and I don't know why, because even when we raise it to what 
the Senate is proposing, to $7.25 an hour over a 2-year period, it 
still means workers will earn $15,080 a year. We are still going to be 
below the national poverty line. I would raise it more.
  There are those who say: Let the market forces work. You bet, let the 
market forces work. But at the same time know that this has to be a 
minimum fair wage.
  I am very distressed about the fact of the impact this has on women. 
If ever there was a woman's issue, wow, it is the minimum wage. Women 
are especially hurt by Congress's failure to raise the minimum wage. 
Forget that we don't increase equal pay for equal work, and we still 
make 75 cents for every dollar men make. Forget that we don't even 
enforce the wage laws that are on the books. But if we do recall, what 
my colleagues need to know is two-thirds of all of the minimum wage 
workers in America are women--two-thirds--meaning a full-time job, 
full-time poverty. Women account for full-time workers in the lowest 
paid jobs: maids and housekeepers, food servers and, most of all, 
childcare workers. What does that mean?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield on that point?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Of course, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask the Senator--I know we are on a short 
time and perhaps the Senator from West Virginia would yield us 3 more 
minutes? Would the Senator do that?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield as much time as the Senators may 
desire.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank, as always, my friend and colleague. But on this 
point the Senator from Maryland makes about the lowest paying jobs, the 
lowest paying jobs in America are predominantly filled by women is the 
point the Senator was making. We find 87 percent of maids are women; 
food servers, 66 percent; cashiers, 75 percent; and childcare, the 
point the Senator was making, is 93 percent.

  The point the Senator has so eloquently made is that women have an 
interest in raising the minimum wage because of the enormous impact it 
has on women generally. I hope the Senator in her time will comment 
about the impact on the children of these women.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, other Senate 
women will be coming to the Senate today on this issue.
  The Senator is absolutely right, raising the minimum wage will impact 
women. Our data analysis says 7 million women will benefit from the 
proposed increase in the minimum wage; 7 million women will take one 
more step out of poverty. We need to remember that many of these women 
are also single moms and get a double whammy. Not only are they working 
in a full-time job that guarantees full-time poverty, but often they 
don't get their child support.
  We are asking them to raise their children below the poverty line in 
the United States of America. Then we diddle and dawdle and ditz around 
in terms of helping them collect their child support, yet we want them 
to give full-time energy to being a mom. We ask them for more parental 
involvement. These mothers want to have more parental involvement, but 
there has to be more Senate involvement getting these women out of 
poverty. Getting these women out of poverty will not come only from 
raising the minimum wage, but it is a very important step forward.
  We want to ensure that if you work in the United States of America, 
it should be worth it. No. 2, when you do work and get paid, again, you 
were not below the poverty line.
  The impact on families is astounding. If a family is poor, they will 
not have enough to eat. Nutrition plays a big role in child development 
and learning ability. You are not going to feel warm, you will not feel 
safe, you are not going to feel secure, and you also are going to 
wonder about this country regarding rewarding work.
  The women of the United States of America deserve better. For those 
women doing well, we want to do right by those who aren't. A childcare 
worker right now working in Baltimore, working on the Eastern Shore, in 
the western Maryland mountains, or in Bethesda is working as hard as 
those working in the Senate or those downtown at law firms. We want to 
say to the women of the United States of America, we are on your side.
  We want to make sure we pass this minimum wage. And to 7 million 
women, we hope you will sleep better and be able to live better because 
of what we are doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have, may I ask the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no limit on the Senator's time.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 39 
are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Louisiana be allocated 10 minutes; that following the Senator from 
Louisiana, I be allocated 10 minutes; and following my comments the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, be allocated 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.


                 Amendment No. 110 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and that the Vitter amendment No. 110 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself and 
     Mr. Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 110 to 
     amendment No. 100.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend title 44 of the United States Code, to provide for 
  the suspension of fines under certain circumstances for first-time 
            paperwork violations by small business concerns)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SUSPENSION OF FINES FOR FIRST-TIME PAPERWORK 
                   VIOLATIONS BY SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       Section 3506 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''), is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Small Businesses.--

[[Page S1028]]

       ``(1) Small business concern.--In this subsection, the term 
     `small business concern' means a business concern that meets 
     the requirements of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) and the regulations promulgated under that 
     section.
       ``(2) In general.--In the case of a first-time violation by 
     a small business concern of a requirement regarding the 
     collection of information by an agency, the head of that 
     agency shall not impose a civil fine on the small business 
     concern unless the head of the agency determines that--
       ``(A) the violation has the potential to cause serious harm 
     to the public interest;
       ``(B) failure to impose a civil fine would impede or 
     interfere with the detection of criminal activity;
       ``(C) the violation is a violation of an internal revenue 
     law or a law concerning the assessment or collection of any 
     tax, debt, revenue, or receipt;
       ``(D) the violation was not corrected on or before the date 
     that is 6 months after the date of receipt by the small 
     business concern of notification of the violation in writing 
     from the agency; or
       ``(E) except as provided in paragraph (3), the violation 
     presents a danger to the public health or safety.
       ``(3) Danger to public health or safety.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any case in which the head of an 
     agency determines under paragraph (2)(E) that a violation 
     presents a danger to the public health or safety, the head of 
     the agency may, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(E), determine 
     not to impose a civil fine on the small business concern if 
     the violation is corrected not later than 24 hours after 
     receipt by the small business owner of notification of the 
     violation in writing.
       ``(B) Considerations.--In determining whether to provide a 
     small business concern with 24 hours to correct a violation 
     under subparagraph (A), the head of an agency shall take into 
     account all of the facts and circumstances regarding the 
     violation, including--
       ``(i) the nature and seriousness of the violation, 
     including whether the violation is technical or inadvertent 
     or involves willful or criminal conduct;
       ``(ii) whether the small business concern has made a good 
     faith effort to comply with applicable laws and to remedy the 
     violation within the shortest practicable period of time; and
       ``(iii) whether the small business concern has obtained a 
     significant economic benefit from the violation.
       ``(C) Notice to congress.--In any case in which the head of 
     an agency imposes a civil fine on a small business concern 
     for a violation that presents a danger to the public health 
     or safety and does not provide the small business concern 
     with 24 hours to correct the violation under subparagraph 
     (A), the head of that agency shall notify Congress regarding 
     that determination not later than the date that is 60 days 
     after the date that the civil fine is imposed by that agency.
       ``(4) Limited to first-time violations.--
       ``(A) In general.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     violation by a small business concern of a requirement 
     regarding collection of information by an agency if that 
     small business concern previously violated any requirement 
     regarding collection of information by that agency.
       ``(B) Other agencies.--For purposes of making a 
     determination under subparagraph (A), the head of an agency 
     shall not take into account any violation of a requirement 
     regarding collection of information by another agency.''.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment No. 
110. It is very simple, very straightforward, very basic, but also very 
important. It is to reduce, in a meaningful way, the excessive 
paperwork burden facing small businesses.
  As I begin, I also want to thank Senator Voinovich for cosponsoring 
this amendment. As have I, he has long been at work on this issue and 
has offered great leadership. I thank him for joining with me in this 
effort.
  Businesses face enormous hurdles and obstacles and challenges, 
particularly small business. Unfortunately, one of them has become the 
enormous paperwork burden created by all levels of government. A small 
business in Louisiana, depending on the nature and location of the 
business, has to deal with myriad Federal agencies. Just off the top of 
my head, these include the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coast 
Guard, SBA, Labor, Commerce, IRS, and Customs, to name a few. That 
doesn't include--and my amendment doesn't pertain to--all of the State 
agencies with which they similarly have to deal and file paperwork 
because of regulations from local entities at the governmental level.
  The compounded effect of this is enormous. All of those requirements, 
paperwork and others, can be absolutely suffocating. There has been 
some quantification of this enormous compliance cost. In September 
2005, the SBA Office of Advocacy released a study that gave us a 
glimpse into this. It said businesses with fewer than 20 employees 
spend more than $7,600 per employee just to comply with Federal 
regulations. That is a staggering cost. To a truly small business that 
doesn't have a vice president in charge of compliance, doesn't have a 
team of lawyers or a team of paper filers in the back office to take 
care of it, that is a real burden. It distracts the principals of the 
business from doing what they set out to do, the main focus and mission 
of the business.
  All too often, the way those regulations and requirements are 
administered is in the tone of a ``gotcha'' game, fining small 
businesses for paperwork violations just to say ``gotcha,'' just for 
the sake of doing it, of issuing those violations and in some cases of 
gaining revenue for the department of government. All of that is wrong, 
and we need to change it.
  Nobody here--myself included--is arguing that we don't need a 
legitimate layer of regulation to protect and promote health and 
safety, the environment, worker safety, et cetera. Nobody is arguing 
against that. That is not what we are talking about. What we are 
talking about today is an amendment I offer on the minimum wage bill 
which includes provisions I introduced separately as the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2007. I thank Mr. Neugebauer of Texas in the 
House for introducing identical companion legislation, as we both did 
in the last Congress. Again, this is basic, straightforward, simple, 
but very important to small business.
  This is exactly how it would work. It would direct Federal agencies 
not to impose civil fines for a first-time violation of their agency's 
paperwork requirements by a small business unless the head of the 
agency determines the following: the violation has the potential to 
cause serious harm to the public interest; not issuing a fine may 
impair criminal investigations; the violation is a violation of 
Internal Revenue law; the violation is not corrected within 6 months; 
or the violation presents a danger to public health or safety. In 
addition, the amendment says that fines can be waived in the case of a 
violation that could potentially present a danger, if the violation is 
corrected within 24 hours of the small business receiving notification 
of the violation. It is important that the first list of those 
possibilities are mandatory. An agency can't issue civil fines for a 
first-time violation unless one of those things happens. But the second 
part of it--fines can be waived unless corrected within 24 hours--is 
discretionary. A fine doesn't have to be waived in that instance by the 
appropriate Federal regulatory agency.
  This is very constrained, very limited, very common sense. Again, the 
most important part of the provision is, it is first-time violations. 
It is a small business. It is civil penalties only. We are not talking 
criminal. We are not talking a big business with a big compliance 
section. We are not talking a mandatory waiving of fines for health and 
safety violations where it goes to public health.
  This is not only a reasonable thing to do, it is long overdue 
considering the enormous compliance costs I alluded to before--$7,600 
per worker for a small business of 20 employees or less--just to take 
care of Federal requirements. That doesn't count State or local. We are 
only dealing with Federal because we are the Federal legislature.
  This bill is particularly relevant to my home following the 
devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. The small business base in 
Louisiana was devastated by those horrific events. In many areas, small 
businesses are starting from scratch, and the whole community of small 
businesses is starting from scratch as it begins to recover from that 
destruction. Particularly in that context, they need this sort of 
reasonable relief--limited, focused civil fines only, first-time 
violations only, small business only, only mandatory waiver when it 
doesn't involve a threat to public health and safety, all of the very 
strenuous and carefully outlined requirements I set out.
  I hope everybody in this Chamber can come together to support this 
commonsense proposal. In a broader vein, I hope this is a part--not the 
only element but a part--of our coming together to pass a minimum wage 
increase with small business regulatory

[[Page S1029]]

and other relief. We should not do one or the other in this context; we 
should do both. That is the reasonable bipartisan compromise which I 
hope we are moving to on the Senate floor--yes, a minimum wage 
increase; yes, real and meaningful regulatory and other relief for 
small business such as the commonsense paperwork reduction act.
  In addition, I hope that small business relief involves relief in an 
area that is most important to small business and so many millions of 
Americans; that is, the ability to access and afford health insurance. 
We will have amendments about that as well.
  I urge all Members of the Senate to support this modest commonsense 
but important measure. I urge all Members of the Senate to come 
together to support a minimum wage increase with real relief for small 
business, whether it is dealing with paperwork, whether it is affording 
or accessing health care insurance--all of those important things small 
businesses face while continuing to be the engine of job creation, the 
backbone of our Louisiana and American economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, America's workers deserve a raise, and 
that is why I rise in strong support of S. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act 
of 2007. America's workers have helped our country make tremendous 
gains in productivity and economic growth, and they deserve to share in 
the prosperity they have created. I am very proud to represent a State 
that has a high minimum wage, and I want to share some of the lessons 
we have learned about providing a living wage in the State of 
Washington.
  We need to do the right thing and pass a clean minimum wage bill now, 
without any of the antiworker amendments that may be offered on the 
other side. As we have heard, it has been almost 10 years since this 
Congress last raised the minimum wage. During that time, the real value 
of that wage has fallen by more than 21 percent. At the same time, the 
costs of health care, energy, and housing have all gone up 
significantly. As a result, many of our middle-class workers have been 
squeezed. I can only imagine the challenges minimum wage workers face 
every day while trying to maintain their families and their dignity on 
$10,000 a year. We can be proud that America's businesses have 
prospered over the last decade, thanks to a 31-percent increase in 
worker productivity and a huge 47-percent increase in profits. Now it 
is time for the least paid of America's workers to share in those 
gains.
  During this debate, we have heard the usual claims that raising the 
minimum wage hurts businesses. In my State, that has not been the 
experience. Washington State, in fact, has the highest minimum wage in 
the country. We are living proof that a livable minimum wage is good 
for our State economy, good for small businesses, and it is good for 
our citizens. In 2006, our State's average unemployment rate was 4.9 
percent, the lowest since 1999. We created 79,000 new jobs. Our poverty 
rate is 11.9 percent, which is lower than the national average. And our 
median household income stands at $49,000, much higher than the 
national average.
  Our State minimum wage, which is indexed to inflation, has helped 
make for good labor productivity and a healthy economy. We have heard 
from my esteemed colleague, Senator Kennedy, chairman of the HELP 
Committee, that States with higher minimum wages create more small 
businesses and more jobs. Last year, the Fiscal Policy Institute 
reported that States with a higher minimum wage created nearly 10 
percent more jobs and 5 percent more small businesses. A May 2006 
Gallup Poll found that 86 percent of small business owners thought that 
raising the minimum wage did not affect their businesses. I could cite 
statistics like that all day, but I think the best evidence is really 
what continues to happen in my State compared with a neighboring State 
that has a much lower minimum wage.
  Washington State's minimum wage is $7.39 an hour. Right next door to 
us, Idaho has a minimum wage at the Federal level of $5.15 per hour. 
Since 1998, when our voters in Washington State passed our minimum wage 
law, Washington employers have been flooded with job applicants from 
Idaho. Now Washington companies can pick the best qualified workers 
from the entire region. On January 11, the New York Times reported that 
Washington State businesses have seen great benefits, while Idaho 
businesses have not.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this New York Times article by 
Timothy Egan in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. This article quotes Don Brunell, president of the 
Association of Washington Business. He says that raising the Federal 
minimum wage is ``almost a no-brainer.'' Washington's strong economy is 
proof that even with the highest minimum wage in the United States, as 
Mr. Brunell put it--and he is president of the Association of 
Washington Business--``Washington is a great place to do business.''
  Some people predicted that small businesses would be hurt in my 
State. But instead, as the article notes, they have prospered beyond 
their expectations. So we have a lot of opportunity to do good here, 
not just for our workers but for our businesses and for our economy. 
But to do the most good, we have to pass a clean bill, one that is free 
from unrelated tax provisions and one that rejects antiworker 
amendments.
  Historically, Congress has not found it necessary to pair a minimum 
wage increase with a package of tax giveaways. In fact, since 1936, 
Congress has raised the minimum wage nine times. But only once has such 
an increase been paired with a tax rollback. We should pass a clean 
bill that gives workers the raise they are long overdue.
  In addition, we should not let this bill be used to weaken the rights 
of American workers. As the chairman of the HELP Subcommittee on 
Employment and Workplace Safety, I am troubled by a number of the 
amendments being floated now by our Republican colleagues, proposals to 
attack the 40-hour workweek, to take away workers' overtime, and to 
force a pay cut on workers who earn their living from tips. There is 
also a deeply flawed proposal that would change the treatment of 
professional employer organizations under the Tax Code.
  This week, while we try to raise the wages of one group of workers, 
we have to fend off the Republican attacks on working families and 
their right to earn overtime. We all know how the demands of work and 
family pull two-career parents away from their loved ones all too 
often. For parents getting their kids to and from school and to 
afterschool activity is not easy, especially when you are forced to 
work uncertain hours. The uncertainty of having to work, say, 50 to 60 
hours this week and then 20 or 30 hours next week will put incredible 
strains on many of our overburdened families.
  Taking away their workplace rights and their ability to collect 
overtime would be a cruel and unwarranted double hit on America's 
working families. The Senate should, once again, reject the Republican 
comp time and 40-hour work week proposals, because they would force a 
pay cut on millions of middle-class workers. We know, for those workers 
who are eligible, overtime can amount to as much as 25 percent of their 
yearly income. We should not undermine the ability of working parents 
to balance their lives and share in the American dream.
  The Republican comp time proposal would force our workers to take 
comp time instead of pay. On top of that pay cut, workers would be at 
the mercy of their employer when it came to asking to use that 
accumulated comp time. We all know that comp time often disappears 
under employer pressures of deadlines and other productivity needs.
  I believe it is important that this Congress protect the rights of 
these hard-working families from an erosion of their quality of life 
and their ability to spend time with their families. We have to stop 
these attacks on working families and start moving in the right 
direction, like expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  I hope we also work to protect our workers who rely on tips. As we 
have heard from my female colleagues on this floor already, nearly two-
thirds of

[[Page S1030]]

our minimum wage workers in this country are women. Many of them are 
single parents. Raising the minimum wage can give them a small measure 
of economic security and the ability to better support their families. 
Many of these low-wage workers are service workers, people such as 
hairdressers, maids, and waitresses. Many in Washington State rely on 
tips as a significant part of their livelihood. We should not support 
amendments that would undermine the tips our workers rely on. In my 
State of Washington, that would mean a pay cut of some $12,000 annually 
for over 120,000 of our tipped workers.
  Finally, I want to say I am very concerned about the proposed tax 
changes for professional employer organizations. I fear that this 
change could undermine the fiscal stability of our State unemployment 
insurance and worker compensation fund. It would also put more burdens 
on our employers who are already playing by the rules.
  Further, it would reduce worker health and safety protections by 
undermining incentives for companies to maintain safe and healthy 
workplaces. By the way, it could also provide an opening for those 
seeking to change the well-established rules of the employer-employee 
relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I believe there should 
be serious thought and debate in the Congress before we make such 
fundamental changes in our labor laws.
  In conclusion, we can do this right by passing a clean bill that 
finally gives American workers the raise they have earned. Over the 
last 8 years, Washington State has proven that a minimum wage increase 
is good for our State's economy and helps our economic development. It 
increases small business ownership and, of course, it helps our workers 
maintain their quality of life.
  I join my colleagues to urge a vote in favor of this bill to increase 
the minimum wage so that we can finally, and importantly, give our low-
income workers the raise they so richly deserve.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 11, 2007]

        For $7.93 an Hour, It's Worth a Trip Across a State Line

                           (By Timothy Egan)

       Liberty Lake, Wa. Jan. 9.--Just eight miles separate this 
     town on the Washington side of the state border from Post 
     Falls on the Idaho side. But the towns are nearly $3 an hour 
     apart in the required minimum wage. Washington pays the 
     highest in the nation, just under $8 an hour, and Idaho has 
     among the lowest, matching 21 states that have not raised the 
     hourly wage beyond the federal minimum of $5.15.
       Nearly a decade ago, when voters in Washington approved a 
     measure that would give the state's lowest-paid workers a 
     raise nearly every year, many business leaders predicted that 
     small towns on this side of the state line would suffer.
       But instead of shriveling up, small-business owners in 
     Washington say they have prospered far beyond their 
     expectations. In fact, as a significant increase in the 
     national minimum wage heads toward law, businesses here at 
     the dividing line between two economies--a real-life 
     laboratory for the debate--have found that raising prices to 
     compensate for higher wages does not necessarily lead to 
     losses in jobs and profits.
       Idaho teenagers cross the state line to work in fast-food 
     restaurants in Washington, where the minimum wage is 54 
     percent higher. That has forced businesses in Idaho to raise 
     their wages to compete.
       Business owners say they have had to increase prices 
     somewhat to keep up. But both states are among the nation's 
     leaders in the growth of jobs and personal income, suggesting 
     that an increase in the minimum wage has not hurt the overall 
     economy.
       ``We're paying the highest wage we've ever had to pay, and 
     our business is still up more than 11 percent over last 
     year,'' said Tom Singleton, who manages a Papa Murphy's 
     takeout pizza store here, with 13 employees.
       His store is flooded with job applicants from Idaho, Mr. 
     Singleton said. Like other business managers in Washington, 
     he said he had less turnover because the jobs paid more.
       By contrast, an Idaho restaurant owner, Rob Elder, said he 
     paid more than the minimum wage because he could not find 
     anyone to work for the Idaho minimum at his Post Falls 
     restaurant, the Hot Rod Cafe.
       ``At $5.15 an hour, I get zero applicants--or maybe a guy 
     with one leg who wouldn't pass a drug test and wouldn't show 
     up on Saturday night because he wants to get drunk with his 
     buddies,'' Mr. Elder said.
       For years, economists have debated the effect that raising 
     the minimum wage would have on business. While the federal 
     minimum wage has not gone up for 10 years, 29 states have 
     raised their wage beyond the federal minimum.
       These increases, according to critics like Brendan Flanagan 
     of the National Restaurant Association, are a burden on the 
     small, mostly family-run businesses in fast food and 
     agriculture that employ workers at the lowest end of the pay 
     scale.
       ``We see the political momentum for this,'' said Mr. 
     Flanagan, a vice president at the association, ``but we 
     cannot ignore what our members are telling us, which is that 
     it will lead to job losses.''
       But the state's major business lobby, the Association of 
     Washington Business, is no longer fighting the minimum-wage 
     law, which is adjusted every year in line with the consumer 
     price index.
       ``You don't see us screaming out loud about this,'' said 
     Don Brunell, president of the trade group, which represents 
     6,300 members.
       ``It's almost a no-brainer,'' Mr. Brunell said, that the 
     federal minimum should go higher. Association officials say 
     they would like to see some flexibility for rural and small-
     town businesses, however.
       Washington's robust economy, which added nearly 90,000 jobs 
     last year, is proof that even with the country's highest 
     minimum wage, ``this is a great place to do business,'' Mr. 
     Brunell said.
       During a recession five years ago, the same group had 
     argued that Washington's high minimum wage law would send 
     businesses fleeing to Idaho. The group sent out a news 
     release with a criticism of the law from John Fazzari, who 
     owns a family-run pizza business in Clarkston, Wash., just 
     minutes from the Idaho town of Lewiston.
       But now Mr. Fazzari says business has never been better, 
     and he has no desire to move to Idaho.
       ``To tell you the truth, my business is fantastic,'' he 
     said in an interview. ``I've never done as much business in 
     my life.''
       Mr. Fazzari employs 42 people at his pizza parlor. New 
     workers make the Washington minimum, $7.93 an hour, but 
     veteran employees make more. To compensate for the required 
     annual increase in the minimum wage, Mr. Fazzari said he 
     raises prices slightly. But he said most customers barely 
     notice.
       He sells more pizza, he said, because he has a better 
     product, and because his customers are loyal.
       ``If you look 10 years down the road, we will probably have 
     no minimum wage jobs on this side of the border, and lots of 
     higher-income jobs,'' Mr. Fazzari said.
       Job figures from both states tend to support his point. 
     While Idaho leads the nation in new job growth, it has a far 
     higher percentage of minimum-wage jobs than Washington. 
     Minimum-wage positions make up just 2.4 percent of the jobs 
     in Washington, while about 13 percent of the jobs in Idaho 
     pay at or less than the proposed federal minimum wage, 
     according to a study done for the state last year.
       Part of the difference could be accounted for by a lower 
     cost of living in Idaho and the higher percentage of 
     technology, manufacturing and government jobs in Washington, 
     economists say. Still, it is hard to find a teenager in Idaho 
     who lives anywhere near Washington who is willing to work for 
     $5.15 an hour.
       ``Are you kidding? There are so many jobs nearby that pay 
     way more than minimum wage,'' said Jennifer Stadtfeldt, who 
     is 17 and lives in Coeur d'Alene, which is just a few minutes 
     from Washington. She pointed out that Taco Bell, McDonald's 
     and other fast-food outlets in her town were posting signs 
     trying to entice entry-level workers with a starting pay of 
     $7 an hour.
       The House today passed a bill increasing the minimum wage, 
     and about 13 million workers would see a pay raise if the 
     Senate and President Bush approve it. Mr. Bush has said he 
     would approve the wage increase so long as concerns of small-
     business owners were taken into account; the Senate has not 
     yet taken up the bill.
       Several studies have concluded that modest changes in the 
     minimum wage have little effect on employment. A study two 
     months ago by an economist at Washington State University 
     seemed to back the experience of Clarkston and other border 
     towns in Washington. The economist, David Holland, said job 
     loss was minimal when higher wages were forced on all 
     businesses. About 97 percent of all minimum-wage workers were 
     better off when wages went up, he wrote.
       But other business groups argue that an increase would hurt 
     consumers and workers at the low end.
       In a survey released on the eve of the November elections--
     in which voters in six states considered raising their 
     minimum wages--the National Restaurant Association said 
     restaurants expected to raise their prices and eliminate some 
     jobs if the voters approved the measures. The initiatives all 
     passed.
       Here on this border, business owners have found small ways 
     to raise their prices, and customers say they have barely 
     noticed.
       ``We used to have a coupon, $3 off on any family-size 
     pizza, and we changed that to $2 off,'' said Mr. Singleton, 
     of Papa Murphy's. ``I haven't heard a single complaint.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, is 
recognized under the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Kennedy for 
his courtesy in helping to make it possible for me to have some time.

[[Page S1031]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know my colleague has already been 
recognized. There is no time limitation, is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that he may be 
able to speak for as long as he needs to.
  Mr. ENZI. There is no objection. I ask unanimous consent that 
following the majority's speakers, we give time for Senator DeMint and 
Senator Sununu.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized 
for a couple minutes, also. I would appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                          The Strategy in Iraq

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last November, the American people sent an 
unmistakable and incredibly important message to their elected leaders. 
They didn't ask for it, they demanded a change of course in Iraq. The 
American people understand that the current strategy is not working. 
They have demanded that we honor the extraordinary effort of our troops 
by providing a strategy for Iraq that is actually worthy of their 
sacrifice. They don't consider more of the same--additional troops 
essentially doing what they have been doing before--they don't consider 
that anything other than an escalation of our military involvement, 
linked to the same mistakes and same illusions of the past. They don't 
consider that an acceptable strategy.
  This new Congress comes here with a mandate, as well as a moral 
obligation, to find not just a new way forward in Iraq but the right 
way forward. That is what we owe the families; that is what we owe 
those fighting forces.
  It is clear the administration's litany of mistakes has made an 
incredibly difficult task that much harder and has reduced what we can 
reasonably expect to accomplish. As the saying goes around here, we are 
where we are. The mistakes of the past do not change the fact that 
Congress bears some responsibility for getting us into this war and, 
therefore, must take responsibility for getting us out.
  That responsibility starts by having a real bipartisan dialog on 
where we go from here. I believe we are finally at the point where that 
can happen. We all agree about the nobility of the service of our 
troops. We all agree about the incredible bravery of the men and women 
of our Armed Forces who put their lives on the line every single day in 
Iraq. We all want to see a stable Iraq. We all know Iraqis want to see 
it, too. We all agree on the need to preserve our vital national 
security interests in the region, and we all agree on the importance of 
preventing the violence in Iraq from spreading into a broader regional 
conflict. We all understand the need to prevent Iraq from becoming a 
safe haven for al-Qaida and like-minded terrorists. We all understand 
the potential of regional chaos and of failed states spreading one to 
the other.
  In order to understand, however, where we go from here, we have to 
remind ourselves of the real nature of this conflict. It is not enough 
to sort of find some safe haven in rhetoric that points out all of the 
downsides but continues to pursue a policy that, in fact, increases 
those downsides, invites those downsides, actually makes matters worse.
  The civil war we are in the middle of now didn't begin when we went 
there. It had been tamped down, quashed by a dictatorship and by 
history. Before I went back to visit the Middle East, I had the chance 
to read a book by Vali Nasr, called ``The Shia Revival,'' in which he 
traces the history of Shiaism and what is happening in the Middle East 
today. What we learned from that is instructive and critical to 
determining whether troops will make a difference on how we resolve 
what is happening in Iraq today.
  When the Prophet Mohammed died, Ali, who was his cousin and stepson 
and virtual son, was passed over at that time to be the caliph. In 
fact, three people were chosen in between him. Ultimately, he did 
become the caliph, but that was the beginning of the difference of the 
separation, if you will, within Islam. That became far more pronounced 
about 1,300 years ago, around 680, when the grandson of Ali was 
slaughtered in the desert along with 72 of his followers--72, a number 
that comes back to haunt us today, because that was indeed an event in 
Karballah in 682 that defined martyrdom, which we see played to by the 
extreme religious efforts that are taking place today in the Middle 
East.
  Why do I mention this today? Because that is where the great Shia-
Sunni divide began. Ali and his followers were beheaded in the desert, 
their bodies left to rot in the sun. Their heads were posted, first in 
Najaf, and later in Damascus. That began to instill a depth of both 
anger and suppression that has gone on all of these centuries.
  The fact is that we, through our invasion and our election, have 
given the Shia at the ballot box what they never could achieve all of 
those years, and the Sunni, who have continually been the dominant, 
more secular faction that managed the affairs of state, are suddenly 
finding themselves in the minority; many believe they were born to the 
right to rule and are determined to restore it. This is the civil 
conflict we have put ourselves in the middle of, with American troops 
who don't speak the language going door to door and house to house, 
attempting to somehow make sense of an alien environment they have been 
plunged into--from California, Kansas, Missouri, Massachusetts, and all 
of our States. We are doing precisely what Secretary Rumsfeld said we 
would not do--putting our troops in the middle of a civil war.
  On my recent trip to the Middle East, I heard grave concerns 
expressed by Sunni leaders, Mubarak and others, about the Shia 
resurgence and Iran's growing influence in the region. Indeed, Iran's 
influence has grown, and we are partly responsible, if not 
significantly responsible, for that growth. We need to stand up for our 
allies in the region, our Sunni friends, yes. But we can and must do it 
in a way that doesn't exacerbate the Sunni-Shia rift in the region. 
That is why we have to ask more of our Sunni allies when it comes to 
pressuring the Sunnis in Iraq to accept that, with this turn of events 
called an election, they will no longer--absent a revolution, which 
some are planning on--be running the country, and that they must lay 
down their arms and join the political process.
  We must make clear that countries such as Saudi Arabia can and must 
do more to crack down on support for those Sunni insurgents coming into 
Iraq from their country. We dare not forget that it is the Sunni 
insurgents who are killing many of our troops. Most of those troops 
have died in Anbar Province. We have a right to demand more from the 
Sunni neighbors to quell that insurgency. We must encourage those Sunni 
neighbors to step up in terms of providing debt relief and 
reconstruction assistance, and we must make clear that threatening to 
intervene in Iraq in a way that is perceived as being on behalf of the 
Sunni minority only serves to exacerbate the Sunni-Shia complexity, the 
tension that is causing so much of the violence today.
  Now here in Washington, a combination of events on the ground and the 
November election results are beginning to produce a bipartisan resolve 
to genuinely change course. Many on both sides of the aisle now agree 
that the administration's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending 
in some 21,500 additional troops would represent a tragic mistake. It 
won't end the violence; it won't provide security; it won't turn back 
the clock and avoid the civil war that is in fact already underway; it 
won't deter terrorists who have a completely different agenda; it won't 
rein in the militias who are viewed as the protectors of the general 
population. It will simply postpone the political solution that is the 
only solution in Iraq, while further damaging our prestige and 
credibility in the region. Unfortunately, it will also expose our 
troops to unnecessary death and injury.
  Our generals understand this. General Abizaid said clearly in his 
testimony before the Armed Services Committee that more U.S. troops 
will not

[[Page S1032]]

solve the security problem. In fact, he said they would only slow the 
process of getting Iraqi security forces to take more responsibility. 
The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously oppose this escalation. In fact, 
according to recent news reports, the Pentagon warned that any short-
term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when 
it ends.
  A short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the 
armed factions in Iraq, including al-Qaida's foreign fighters, Sunni 
insurgents and Sunni and Shiite militias, without giving an enduring 
boost to the U.S. military mission or the Iraqi Army. And it is not 
just the advice of his military commanders in Iraq the President is 
ignoring, it is the bipartisan counsel of the Iraq Study Group 
appointed for the very purpose of defining a new course.
  Mr. President, what kind of arrogance so willfully kicks to the curb 
the work product of two former Secretaries of State, Republicans, a 
former Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Republican, a former 
Senator and member of the leadership, Republican, and a group of 
moderates, a former Secretary of Defense, and others respected for the 
moderation of their views on foreign policy and security issues? What 
kind of arrogance avoids almost all of those recommendations and moves 
in a different direction?
  Rather than change course, this administration chose to ignore the 
generals. In fact, it chose to change the generals. The folly of this 
escalation is so clear that we have a bipartisan responsibility to do 
everything in our power to say no.
  I ask my colleagues: Is there one colleague here who believes that 
21,500 troops is going to pacify Iraq? Is there a colleague here who 
believes that 100,000 troops will pacify Iraq? It is not enough for 
Congress simply to go on record opposing the President's reckless plan. 
That is why I support the resolution submitted by my colleague, Senator 
Kennedy, that requires a new congressional authorization, which is 
appropriate because the prior authorization only applies to the weapons 
of mass destruction and to the threat that Iraq poses to us based on 
the presence of Saddam Hussein. This is a new Iraq, and it is an Iraq 
with a civil war, and the Congress of the United States has a 
responsibility and a moral obligation to make certain that if our 
troops from each of our States are going to fight and die, we stand up 
and be counted as to what the force structure is to be, as to what 
their mission should be because this administration has proven 
unwilling to get it right.
  Stopping this escalation, however, is not enough. I believe Congress 
has to provide a responsible exit strategy that preserves our interests 
in the region, preserves our ability to continue to protect the 
security of the United States, and honors the sacrifice our troops have 
made. I believe those are tests we need to pass.
  Six months ago in the Senate, we stood against appeals to politics 
and pride and demanded a date to bring our troops home, to make Iraqis 
stand up for Iraq and fight a more effective war on terror. But while 
we lost that rollcall, I still believe it was the right policy to put 
in place, to demand benchmarks, to demand accountability, and to 
leverage action.
  That is why I will again introduce legislation, slightly different 
this time, in order to try to offer a comprehensive strategy for 
achieving a political solution. I believe the strategy I will set forth 
is the best way forward for America and for Iraq. We have to find a way 
to end this misguided war and bring our troops home, and the 
legislation, while protecting all the interests I described, I believe 
can do that.
  I believe the Iraq Study Group's recommendations can form the basis 
for finding a bipartisan way forward. Many of those proposals, which 
are consistent with proposals that some in the Senate have long 
advocated, are incorporated in the legislation I will offer, including 
launching a major diplomatic initiative, enforcing a series of 
benchmarks for meeting key political objectives, shifting the military 
mission to training Iraqi security forces and conducting targeted 
counterterrorism operations, maintaining an over-the-horizon presence 
to protect our interests supported by a concerted effort to disarm, 
demobilize, and reintegrate the militias which must be undertaken by 
Iraqis.
  This legislation includes an additional provision that is a critical 
component of the strategy. I know a lot of colleagues were nervous 
about setting a date. Fewer are as nervous today. But I believe there 
is a way to require the President to set that date, negotiate that 
exit, a way to do it constitutionally and also within the context of 
the reauthorization.
  I think that is not an arbitrary deadline. In fact, the Iraq Study 
Group report effectively sets a goal of withdrawing U.S. combat forces 
from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, or within approximately 1 year. 
This date was based on the timeframe for transferring responsibility to 
Iraqi security forces set forth by General Casey and on the schedule 
agreed upon with the Iraqi Government itself for achieving key 
political security objectives.
  The President even said that under that new strategy, responsibility 
for security would be transferred to Iraqis before the end of this 
year. That is how unarbitrary it is. The President has said it, our 
generals have said it, the Iraq Study Group has said it.
  I wish to repeat this because it is important because it is 
continually distorted. We all want success, but we have to examine the 
realities of the road to success. An effort that combines diplomacy 
with smart deployment of our troops is the only road to success.
  I ask my colleagues: Where is the diplomacy? Many of us can remember, 
under a Republican President, Henry Kissinger shuttling back and forth 
day and night working to bring an end to the Vietnam war. Many of us 
can remember Jim Baker, at the beginning of the decade in the nineties, 
when he took 15 trips to Syria alone, and on the final trip got 
President Asad to actually agree to support what we were doing. That is 
diplomacy.
  We don't have that kind of diplomacy. We lack even a special envoy 
there day to day, hour to hour, leveraging the Arab League, leveraging 
the United Nations, working with the U.N. Perm Five, working with the 
neighboring countries, doing the kinds of significant, heavy diplomatic 
lifting our sons and daughters who are dying deserve.
  As our combat troop levels wind down, we can have sufficient forces 
to confront the Sunni insurgency. We can still continue to prosecute 
al-Qaida, but our core security interests--the security interests of 
preventing another terrorist attack on our country--those interests lie 
where our troops can still play a positive role in confronting Sunni 
insurgents and their al-Qaida allies. That will happen when we focus on 
Al Anbar Province, not Baghdad.
  It is time for Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country, and 
that is not just a statement. It has been 4 years, 300,000 troops are 
trained. When I talk with the military people, they don't tell me 
training is the problem. They tell me motivation is the problem. Those 
300,000 troops are not prepared to die for an Iraq yet, and they are 
mostly local militia and/or local tribe affiliated, which is their true 
allegiance at this point in time.

  We need a timetable which forces Iraqi politicians to confront this 
reality. Americans should not be dying because Iraqi politicians refuse 
to compromise and come together. If they are not willing to do it today 
with thousands of people dying around them, with this kind of sectarian 
violence, what will make them more willing to do that in a year? They 
are using the security blanket of American presence in order to avoid 
making those compromises, and we need to understand that and get about 
the business of leveraging the compromise that is the only solution to 
what is happening in Iraq.
  I believe a deadline will actually help provide the Iraqis with the 
motivation and the pressure to step up and take control. General 
Abizaid made it clear that is essential to our strategy. The key to 
providing the motivation is making sure they, in fact, begin to take 
control and begin to define their own future.
  As we give the Iraqis more control over their own destiny, we also 
have to hold them accountable for the fundamentals of leading their 
country on the construction, as well as the basic resolution, the 
political differences within the oil revenues, the federalism

[[Page S1033]]

issue, which are the two great stumbling blocks fundamental to a 
resolution.
  Why the President didn't make the condition of providing additional 
security and putting additional Americans online, why he didn't make 
their resolution of those issues a precondition is beyond me. But 
American forces are now going to be put at greater risk, more kids at 
harm, without the fundamentals that are essential and that are 
completely out of the power of any squad or company or battalion to be 
able to resolve.
  When Prime Minister Maliki took power in May, General Casey and 
Ambassador Khalilzad said the new Government had 6 months to make the 
political compromises necessary to win public confidence and unify the 
country--6 months last May. They were right. And yet with no real 
deadline to force the Government's hand, that period passed without any 
meaningful action, and we are now seeing the disastrous results.
  To ensure history does not repeat itself, we need to put those 
benchmarks in place, and we need to have those benchmarks agreed upon. 
That is the least, again, we can ask on behalf of our troops.
  I, also, believe a deadline is essential to getting Iraq's neighbors 
to face up to the realities of the security needs of the region. If we 
are going to be concerned about Iran, it should not be surreptitiously 
based on them using us. It should be all of us together defining a new 
security arrangement for the region. General Zinni has talked about 
that many times. He is one of the most respected hands in that region.
  In addition, our own intelligence agencies tell us that the war in 
Iraq is fanning the flames of jihad, and we have to stop serving as an 
al-Qaida recruitment tool. When are we going to take that seriously in 
the Senate? We spent a lot of time and energy to reorganize the 
intelligence community. We supposedly have the best intelligence now, 
and that intelligence in the conglomerate is telling us that this 
current policy is putting America at greater risk because we are 
creating more terrorists, fanning the flames of unrest in the region, 
and creating a recruitment tool for al-Qaida in that region.
  We can see the results. Hamas is more powerful now. Hezbollah and 
Nasrallah are more powerful today. Iran is more powerful today. Syria 
is more than willing to play with Iran than care about what the 
concerns might be of the rest of the region.
  We have gone backward because of this policy. How can this 
administration stand up and say to us that we have to fear the security 
interests of the future, when the security interests of the present are 
moving in the wrong direction?
  Afghanistan, where the diversion of resources to Iraq has already 
allowed the Taliban to rise again, is increasing as a threat to those 
long-term security interests. Osama bin Laden roams free while a 
regenerated al-Qaida continues to plot attacks on American interests, 
and the flourishing opium trade has turned the country into a virtual 
narcostate, funding insurgents and warlords and threatening the 
viability of the Karzai Government.
  Now our generals in Afghanistan are warning, in the darkest possible 
terms, that the Taliban is poised to launch a major new offensive in 
Afghanistan, and they have issued an urgent appeal for more U.S. troops 
to fight back. Instead of sending 20,000 troops over to Iraq, we ought 
to be listening to our military commanders and give them the few 
thousand more troops they desperately need to deal with the Taliban in 
Afghanistan.
  On the broader regional front, we clearly need to come to grips with 
the need to engage Iran in a way that not only deters Iran from nuclear 
and other military adventurism, but does not create another disastrous 
war that is not in our national security interest. I want to take one 
moment before closing to speak to that point.
  I am hardly the only one in the Senate who is concerned about a 
terrible byproduct of the administration's escalation plan for Iraq. 
That byproduct could be movement towards a calculated military conflict 
with Iran, which would further destabilize the Middle East, fan the 
flames of intra-Muslim and Muslim-Western violence. In fact, many 
Americans are increasingly concerned that the administration's rhetoric 
regarding Iran sounds eerily familiar.
  Congress must make it absolutely certain that we do not make the same 
mistake we made in rushing to war with Iraq, starting by making it 
clear President Bush does not have the authority to engage Iran 
militarily, excepting, of course, an immediate attack on our troops or 
a definable and palpable emergency. He does not have the authority to 
engage them without express congressional authorization.
  Looking at recent developments, it is not hard to see why people are 
concerned. In the President's speech introducing his new Iraq strategy, 
he issued a thinly veiled threat that sounded as though the 
administration was at least contemplating military operations on the 
Iranian side of the border. In the last few weeks we have arrested 
Iranian nationals in two separate incidents in Iraq. The initial 
operations against Shiite militias in Baghdad at a minimum are bound to 
exacerbate tensions with Iran even further, and we recently sent 
another aircraft carrier to the region, ratcheting up our aggressive 
posture.
  Taken alone, individually, there is a certain logic to each of those 
actions. Taken on the whole, however, they have created an impression 
in the region, and as we all know impressions are what ultimately push 
leaders to make judgments about threat and to make determinations about 
their own actions. The impression in the region is that we have taken 
the side of the Sunnis in the conflict with Iraq. Whether that is true 
or not, we must never forget that in the Middle East especially, 
perception is reality. If we are seen to be favoring the Sunnis, we run 
the risk of alienating the Shiite majority that will ultimately be 
running Iraq--that is the reality--and inflaming extremism throughout 
the region. It is essential that we remain evenhanded in our own 
actions as well as our words in our efforts to bring stability to Iraq.
  There is another reason, as the Iraqi Study Group suggested, we 
should engage Iran and Syria. Leadership means talking to countries who 
are not our friends. President Kennedy reminded us: Never fear to 
negotiate but never negotiate out of fear. We need to engage directly 
when our vital national security interests are at stake. We have done 
it all through our history. Richard Nixon sent Henry Kissinger to 
China. President Reagan went to meet with Miguel Gorbachev and came to 
an agreement on arms after defining the ``evil empire.'' The 
conversation that I had recently in the Middle East with Senator Dodd, 
when we traveled there together with President Asad of Syria, led us to 
believe that a dialog could, in fact, be constructed in working toward 
a goal that we share with Syria: creating a stable, secular, Arab Iraq. 
That is at least what President Asad said he would like. It seems to 
me, given the morass we are in, it is worth putting that to the test.
  We cannot turn back the clock and reverse the decisions that brought 
us to this pass in Iraq and the Middle East. We cannot achieve the kind 
of clear and simple victory the administration promised the American 
people so often even as the conditions in Iraq grew worse and worse. 
But we can avoid an outright defeat. We can avoid creating the chaos we 
say we want to avoid. We can avoid a victory for our adversaries by 
identifying specifically what we can and cannot accomplish in Iraq.
  With a new Congress comes a new responsibility: to get this policy 
right. That starts with preventing the President from going forward 
with this senseless escalation. And it has to end with finding an exit 
strategy that preserves our core interests in Iraq, in the region, and 
throughout the world.
  I look forward to having a real debate. I hope we can find that way.
  I might mention, when Senator Dodd and I were about to helicopter out 
of Baghdad, we were at Landing Zone Washington, which is right in the 
Green Zone. Many Senators are familiar with it. In the darkness of 
night, as we were leaving, a young man came up to us to talk to us and 
he identified himself as an officer in the Army. He was going home for 
leave and was hitching a ride on the helicopter to go home. He went 
home, visited his 14-

[[Page S1034]]

month-old daughter and, I think, his 4-year-old son, if I am correct. 
His name was Brian Freeman and he was intelligent and thoughtful and 
bright and he talked about his future and talked with us animatedly 
about what was going on in Iraq and how he disagreed with what he was 
being asked to do and how others did. He went home, and we just learned 
that this Friday he was killed. So he went back. He did his duty as so 
many have.
  I know when I returned from war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up 
and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong. To 
this day that has been controversial in some quarters, but I am proud 
that I told the truth. And that truth has been documented again and 
again from Army training manuals to books that have been written to the 
statements of our own Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert 
McNamara. But, before I finish, I want to make it clear that that is my 
motivation in talking about this war now and this predicament that so 
many of these soldiers find themselves in.
  I asked the question in 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man 
to die for a mistake? Although I knew going into public service I 
wanted to be in a place where I could have an impact should there be a 
choice of war in the future, but I never thought that I would be 
reliving the need to ask that question again.
  We are there. Most of our colleagues understand this is a mistake. 
Most of our colleagues understand that 21,000 troops is not going to 
pacify Iraq. So all of us have a deep-rooted obligation, a deep moral 
obligation to ask ourselves what we can do to further the interests of 
our Nation and honor the sacrifices of those troops themselves. I think 
it is to get this policy right. I hope the President will truly listen 
to us in these next days because we want to work in good faith to do 
that.
  Before I finish, I want to add a note, both personal and political. 
Two years ago I sought the Presidency to lead us on a different course. 
I am proud of the campaign we ran, proud of the fact that 3 years ago I 
said that Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong 
time; proud that we defined energy independence and made it, for the 
first time, part of the Presidential race; proud of a health care plan 
that we laid out that to this moment remains viable and waiting to be 
used in order to lower the health care costs for our fellow Americans.
  We came close, certainly close enough, to be tempted to try again. 
There are powerful reasons to want to continue that fight now. But I 
have concluded this is not the time for me to mount a Presidential 
campaign. It is time to put my energy to work as part of the majority 
in the Senate to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our 
security and our ability to fight the real war on terror.

  The people of Massachusetts have given me an incredible privilege to 
serve, and I intend to work here to change a policy in Iraq that 
threatens all that I have cared about and fought for since I came home 
from Vietnam.
  The fact is, what happens here in the next 2 years may irrevocably 
shape or terribly distort the administration of whichever candidate is 
next elected President. Decisions are being taken and put into effect 
today and in the days to come that may leave to the next President a 
wider war, a war even more painful, more difficult, more prolonged than 
the war we already have.
  Iraq, if we Senators force a change of course, may yet bring 
stability and an exit with American security intact or it may bring our 
efforts in the region to a failure that we will all recognize as a 
catastrophe.
  I don't want the next President to find that he or she has inherited 
a nation still divided and a policy destined to end as Vietnam did, in 
a bitter or sad legacy. I intend to devote all my efforts and energies 
over the next 2 years, not to the race for the Presidency for myself 
but for doing whatever I can to ensure that the next President can take 
the oath with a reasonable prospect of success for him or her--for the 
United States. And I intend to speak the truth as I find it without 
regard for political correctness or partisan advantage, to advise my 
colleagues and my fellow citizens to the best of my ability and 
judgment, and to support every action the Senate may reasonably and 
constitutionally take to guide and direct the ship of state.
  This mission, this responsibility, is something all of us must 
accept, and as someone who made the mistake of voting for the 
resolution that gave the President the authority to go to war, I feel 
the weight of a personal responsibility to act, to devote time and 
energy to the national dialog in an effort to limit this war and bring 
our participation to a conclusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know how difficult of a decision this 
is for Senator Kerry to make. And today, I say to the people of the 
country how proud all of us in Massachusetts are of John Kerry, and his 
outstanding service in the United States Senate for our State and for 
our country. Throughout his career, he has been a true hero in every 
sense of the word.
  He has been my colleague since 1984, and I have deeply valued the 
opportunity to work side-by-side with him, but most of all I'm proud to 
call him my friend. Over the years, Vicki and I have grown so close to 
John and his wonderful wife Teresa and his loving daughters Vanessa and 
Alexandra. They are a special family, and their friendship is one we 
cherish.
  We heard just a few moments ago why he was able to galvanize the 
country, and earn such tremendous support, in the 2004 Presidential 
campaign. The eloquence, the passion, the insight, the knowledge of 
history, and awareness of public events--these qualities we saw on 
display just moments ago in this Chamber--these are the qualities that 
characterize and define the career of John Kerry.
  Now John has decided to continue to devote his passion, his interest, 
and his energies toward bringing our troops home from Iraq safely, and 
how fortunate they are to know that he will devote all of his energies 
to that cause over the next months--hopefully not years. All of us in 
Massachusetts look forward to his continued service in the United 
States Senate for years to come and to his voice and his vote working 
here for the working people of Massachusetts, for their jobs, for their 
health care, for the education of their children, for the betterment of 
their environment, and for their hope for a better quality of life. 
He's been there for us in the past on so many of these critical 
concerns, and we take comfort in knowing he'll be there for all of us 
in the future as well.
  I know this has been a difficult time for John. I congratulate him on 
an outstanding presentation this afternoon, and for his courage and 
determination. I congratulate him for continuing to want to make a very 
important difference on the overarching and overriding issue of our 
time, and that is how we can remedy this catastrophic mistake of Iraq 
and bring our servicemen home safely.
  I'm grateful to be able to call John Kerry my colleague and friend, 
and look forward to working with him for years to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had the good fortune in my lifetime, 
my adult life, to see people for whom I have developed a tremendous 
respect and admiration, and certainly one of those people is John 
Kerry. Why? Why would I say that about John Kerry? Why would I say that 
as I have traveled through life he is one of those people who has meant 
so much to me in being a role model for the things that I do and the 
things that I think the American people should focus on?
  He has a tremendous educational background--Yale, Boston College. He 
was a prosecutor. He was a war hero. A war hero--multiple awards, 
fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, for heroism. We saw someone last 
night stand in the House Chamber whom the President directed, who 
received the Silver Star, and that is wonderful. We all looked at him 
with admiration. John Kerry has had a Silver Star, multiple Purple 
Hearts--I repeat, multiple awards for bravery. He is a political 
activist, someone who at great sacrifice decided to do gallant things 
after his heroic efforts in Vietnam. He came home and continued being a 
hero politically. The people of Massachusetts elected him to Lieutenant 
Governor, a job I also had,

[[Page S1035]]

and I have some understanding about that job. He came to Congress the 
year I did. In 1982, we both came here. He is a cancer survivor. His 
wife is one of the most remarkable people I have ever met. Teresa Heinz 
is a real fighter in her own way. I knew her before the Presidential 
election, but I got to know her very well during the Presidential 
election, and I like her so much.

  John Kerry was my nominee for President of the United States. I 
worked hard for John Kerry. I believed in John Kerry. I believed John 
Kerry would change the direction of this country and the world. I still 
believe that. John Kerry came within a few votes of being President of 
the United States in one of the dirtiest, most negative, unfair 
campaigns I have ever witnessed. I am not going to go into all the 
things they did to John Kerry other than to say that to try to take 
away from this man, his gallantry as a warfighter, was beyond the pale, 
but they did it.
  John Kerry and I have shared heartache together. We have done it 
recently. I will always have admiration and respect for John Kerry. The 
mere fact that he announced he is not running for President speaks well 
of this gallant man, this heroic man, because he could run for 
President. He has money in the bank, so to speak. He knows people all 
over America. He has the best e-mail addresses in the country. He has 
chosen that this is not the time. But I will continue to look to John 
Kerry for his leadership in foreign affairs. He is a man who knows this 
world. Listen to the speech he just gave on the conflict in Iraq, a 
textbook address about the ills of the present status of what we are 
doing in Iraq. He will approach whatever he does with a sense of 
morality. He will proceed to be one of the leaders, as he has been for 
decades, on the environment. He has a book coming out soon with his 
wife, and I am sure it will lay out things he has believed in for so 
long, such as health care. He is the chairman of the Small Business 
Committee.
  So I say to John Kerry: I love you, John Kerry. I am so sorry things 
didn't work out for our country, but that doesn't take away from the 
fact that I will always care about you greatly and remember the times 
we have spent together. We have a lot more to do for Massachusetts, 
Nevada, and the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, before I engage in my business, I also 
would like to say to Senator Kerry that I, too, am honored to serve 
with you, and I appreciate the remarks that have been made about you 
today.


Amendments Nos. 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, and 162, en bloc, to 
                           Amendment No. 100

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside and that I be permitted to offer 
amendments Nos. 155 through 162, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, there are two speakers. 
I would like to ask unanimous consent that following the two speakers, 
Senator Enzi identify the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, to be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has a 
unanimous consent request pending. Is there objection to that request? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator would be kind enough to 
permit me to ask unanimous consent that following the next two 
speakers, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes en 
     bloc amendments numbered 155 through 162.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 155

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, January 23, 2007 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 156

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue code of 1986 regarding the 
 disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible 
                         spending arrangements)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DISPOSITION OF UNUSED HEALTH BENEFITS IN CAFETERIA 
                   PLANS AND FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) is amended by 
     redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (i) and 
     (j), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (g) the 
     following:
       ``(h) Contributions of Certain Unused Health Benefits.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, a plan or 
     other arrangement shall not fail to be treated as a cafeteria 
     plan solely because qualified benefits under such plan 
     include a health flexible spending arrangement under which 
     not more than $500 of unused health benefits may be--
       ``(A) carried forward to the succeeding plan year of such 
     health flexible spending arrangement, or
       ``(B) to the extent permitted by section 106(d), 
     contributed by the employer to a health savings account (as 
     defined in section 223(d)) maintained for the benefit of the 
     employee.
       ``(2) Health flexible spending arrangement.--For purposes 
     of this subsection, the term `health flexible spending 
     arrangement' means a flexible spending arrangement (as 
     defined in section 106(c)) that is a qualified benefit and 
     only permits reimbursement for expenses for medical care (as 
     defined in section 213(d)(1), without regard to subparagraphs 
     (C) and (D) thereof).
       ``(3) Unused health benefits.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, with respect to an employee, the term `unused 
     health benefits' means the excess of--
       ``(A) the maximum amount of reimbursement allowable to the 
     employee for a plan year under a health flexible spending 
     arrangement, over
       ``(B) the actual amount of reimbursement for such year 
     under such arrangement.''.
       (b) Repeal of FSA Termination Provision.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (e) of section 106 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the Tax Relief and 
     Health Care Act of 2006, is amended by striking ``health 
     flexible spending arrangement or'' each place it appears.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading of section 106(e) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``FSA or''.
       (B) Section 223(c)(1)(B)(iii)(II) of such Code, as added by 
     the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is amended to 
     read as follows:

       ``(II) the balance of such arrangement is contributed by 
     the employer to a health savings account of the individual 
     under section 125(h)(1)(B), in accordance with rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 157

  (Purpose: To increase The Federal minimum wage by an amount that is 
                based on applicable State minimum wages)

       In section 2 of the bill, strike subsection (a) and insert 
     the following:
       (a) In General.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment 
     of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, an amount equal to the 
     minimum wage in effect on such date in the State in which 
     such employee is employed (whether as a result of the 
     application of Federal or State law) increased by $0.70;
       ``(B) beginning 12 months after that 60th day, the amount 
     that would be determined under subparagraph (A) by 
     substituting `$1.40' for `$0.70'; and
       ``(C) beginning 24 months after that 60th day, the amount 
     that would be determined under subparagraph (A) by 
     substituting `$2.10' for `$0.70';''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 158

  (Purpose: To increase the Federal minimum wage by an amount that is 
                based on applicable State minimum wages)

       In section 101 of the amendment, strike subsection (a) and 
     insert the following:
       (a) In General.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) beginning on the 60th day after the date of enactment 
     of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, an amount equal to the 
     minimum wage in effect on such date in the State in which 
     such employee is employed (whether as a result of the 
     application of Federal or State law) increased by $0.70;
       ``(B) beginning 12 months after that 60th day, the amount 
     that would be determined under subparagraph (A) by 
     substituting `$1.40' for `$0.70'; and
       ``(C) beginning 24 months after that 60th day, the amount 
     that would be determined under subparagraph (A) by 
     substituting `$2.10' for `$0.70';''.

[[Page S1036]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 159

(Purpose: To protect individuals from having their money involuntarily 
        collected and used for lobbying by a labor organization)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROTECTION OF WORKERS' POLITICAL RIGHTS.

       Title III of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 
     U.S.C. 185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 304. PROTECTION OF WORKER'S POLITICAL RIGHTS.

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Except with the separate, prior, 
     written, voluntary authorization of an individual, it shall 
     be unlawful for any labor organization to collect from or 
     assess its members or nonmembers any dues, initiation fee, or 
     other payment if any part of such dues, fee, or payment will 
     be used to lobby members of Congress or Congressional staff 
     for the purpose of influencing legislation.
       ``(b) Authorization.--An authorization described in 
     subsection (a) shall remain in effect until revoked and may 
     be revoked at any time.''.


                           amendment no. 160

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain 
               small businesses to defer payment of tax)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFERRED PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 62 (relating to 
     extensions of time for payment of tax) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6168. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PAYMENT OF TAX FOR CERTAIN 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       ``(a) In General.--An eligible small business may elect to 
     pay the tax imposed by chapter 1 in 4 equal installments.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The maximum amount of tax which may be 
     paid in installments under this section for any taxable year 
     shall not exceed whichever of the following is the least:
       ``(1) The tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year.
       ``(2) The amount contributed by the taxpayer into a BRIDGE 
     Account during such year.
       ``(3) The excess of $250,000 over the aggregate amount of 
     tax for which an election under this section was made by the 
     taxpayer (or any predecessor) for all prior taxable years.
       ``(c) Eligible Small Business.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `eligible small business' 
     means, with respect to any taxable year, any person if--
       ``(A) such person meets the active business requirements of 
     section 1202(e) throughout such taxable year,
       ``(B) the taxpayer has gross receipts of $10,000,000 or 
     less for the taxable year,
       ``(C) the gross receipts of the taxpayer for such taxable 
     year are at least 10 percent greater than the average annual 
     gross receipts of the taxpayer (or any predecessor) for the 2 
     prior taxable years, and
       ``(D) the taxpayer uses an accrual method of accounting.
       ``(2) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) shall apply for 
     purposes of this subsection.
       ``(d) Date for Payment of Installments; Time for Payment of 
     Interest.--
       ``(1) Date for payment of installments.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an election is made under this 
     section for any taxable year, the first installment shall be 
     paid on or before the due date for such installment and each 
     succeeding installment shall be paid on or before the date 
     which is 1 year after the date prescribed by this paragraph 
     for payment of the preceding installment.
       ``(B) Due date for first installment.--The due date for the 
     first installment for a taxable year shall be whichever of 
     the following is the earliest:
       ``(i) The date selected by the taxpayer.
       ``(ii) The date which is 2 years after the date prescribed 
     by section 6151(a) for payment of the tax for such taxable 
     year.
       ``(2) Time for payment of interest.--If the time for 
     payment of any amount of tax has been extended under this 
     section--
       ``(A) Interest for period before due date of first 
     installment.--Interest payable under section 6601 on any 
     unpaid portion of such amount attributable to the period 
     before the due date for the first installment shall be paid 
     annually.
       ``(B) Interest during installment period.--Interest payable 
     under section 6601 on any unpaid portion of such amount 
     attributable to any period after such period shall be paid at 
     the same time as, and as a part of, each installment payment 
     of the tax.
       ``(C) Interest in the case of certain deficiencies.--In the 
     case of a deficiency to which subsection (e)(3) applies for a 
     taxable year which is assessed after the due date for the 
     first installment for such year, interest attributable to the 
     period before such due date, and interest assigned under 
     subparagraph (B) to any installment the date for payment of 
     which has arrived on or before the date of the assessment of 
     the deficiency, shall be paid upon notice and demand from the 
     Secretary.
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Application of limitation to partners and s 
     corporation shareholders.--
       ``(A) In general.--In applying this section to a 
     partnership which is an eligible small business--
       ``(i) the election under subsection (a) shall be made by 
     the partnership,
       ``(ii) the amount referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall be 
     the sum of each partner's tax which is attributable to items 
     of the partnership and assuming the highest marginal rate 
     under section 1, and
       ``(iii) the partnership shall be treated as the taxpayer 
     referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b).
       ``(B) Overall limitation also applied at partner level.--In 
     the case of a partner in a partnership, the limitation under 
     subsection (b)(3) shall be applied at the partnership and 
     partner levels.
       ``(C) Similar rules for s corporations.--Rules similar to 
     the rules of subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to 
     shareholders in an S corporation.
       ``(2) Acceleration of payment in certain cases.--
       ``(A) In general.--If--
       ``(i) the taxpayer ceases to meet the requirement of 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), or
       ``(ii) there is an ownership change with respect to the 
     taxpayer,
     then the extension of time for payment of tax provided in 
     subsection (a) shall cease to apply, and the unpaid portion 
     of the tax payable in installments shall be paid on or before 
     the due date for filing the return of tax imposed by chapter 
     1 for the first taxable year following such cessation.
       ``(B) Ownership change.--For purposes of subparagraph, in 
     the case of a corporation, the term `ownership change' has 
     the meaning given to such term by section 382. Rules similar 
     to the rules applicable under the preceding sentence shall 
     apply to a partnership.
       ``(3) Proration of deficiency to installments.--Rules 
     similar to the rules of section 6166(e) shall apply for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(f) BRIDGE Account.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `BRIDGE Account' means a trust 
     created or organized in the United States for the exclusive 
     benefit of an eligible small business, but only if the 
     written governing instrument creating the trust meets the 
     following requirements:
       ``(A) No contribution will be accepted for any taxable year 
     in excess of the amount allowed as a deferral under 
     subsection (b) for such year.
       ``(B) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n)) 
     or another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the manner in which such person will 
     administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements 
     of this section.
       ``(C) The assets of the trust consist entirely of cash or 
     of obligations which have adequate stated interest (as 
     defined in section 1274(c)(2)) and which pay such interest 
     not less often than annually.
       ``(D) The assets of the trust will not be commingled with 
     other property except in a common trust fund or common 
     investment fund.
       ``(E) Amounts in the trust may be used only--
       ``(i) as security for a loan to the business or for 
     repayment of such loan, or
       ``(ii) to pay the installments under this section.
       ``(2) Account taxed as grantor trust.--The grantor of a 
     BRIDGE Account shall be treated for purposes of this title as 
     the owner of such Account and shall be subject to tax thereon 
     in accordance with subpart E of part I of subchapter J of 
     this chapter (relating to grantors and others treated as 
     substantial owners).
       ``(3) Time when payments deemed made.--For purposes of this 
     section, a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment to 
     a BRIDGE Account on the last day of a taxable year if such 
     payment is made on account of such taxable year and is made 
     within 3\1/2\ months after the close of such taxable year.
       ``(g) Reports.--The Secretary may require such reporting as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(h) Application of Section.--This section shall apply to 
     taxes imposed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010, and before January 1, 2015.''
       (b) Priority of Lender.--Subsection (b) of section 6323 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Loans secured by bridge accounts.--With respect to a 
     BRIDGE account (as defined in section 6168(f)) with any bank 
     (as defined in section 408(n)), to the extent of any loan 
     made by such bank without actual notice or knowledge of the 
     existence of such lien, as against such bank, if such loan is 
     secured by such account.''
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subchapter B of chapter 62 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6168. Extension of time for payment of tax for certain small 
              businesses.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.
       (e) Study by General Accounting Office.--
       (1) Study.--In consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     undertake a study to evaluate the applicability (including 
     administrative aspects) and impact of the BRIDGE Act of 2007 
     including how it affects the capital funding needs of 
     businesses

[[Page S1037]]

     under the Act and number of businesses benefitting.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2014, the Comptroller 
     General shall transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of 
     the Senate a written report presenting the results of the 
     study conducted pursuant to this subsection, together with 
     such recommendations for legislative or administrative 
     changes as the Comptroller General determines are 
     appropriate.


                           amendment no. 161

    (Purpose: To prohibit the use of flexible schedules by Federal 
 employees unless such flexibl schedule benefits are made available to 
   private sector employees not later than 1 year after the date of 
            enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FLEXIBLE SCHEDULE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Prohibition of Use of Flexible Schedules for Federal 
     Employees Until Flexible Schedules Are Available to Private 
     Employees.--
       (1) Prohibition of use of flexible schedules for federal 
     employees.--Notwithstanding any provision of subchapter II of 
     chapter 61 of title 5, United States Code, no agency may 
     establish, administer, or use any flexible schedule program 
     authorized under section 6122 of that title.
       (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, unless during such 1 
     year period, the Secretary of Labor submits certification to 
     the Office of Personnel Management that a statute has been 
     enacted that allows employers covered by the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 to provide for the use of a flexible 
     schedule similar to the flexible schedule program authorized 
     under section 6122 of title 5, United States Code, for 
     employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods 
     for commerce.
       (b) Termination of Prohibition.--If the prohibition under 
     subsection (a) takes effect, that subsection shall cease to 
     have any force or effect on the date that the Secretary of 
     Labor submits a certification described in subsection (a)(2) 
     to the Office of Personnel Management.


                           amendment no. 162

 (Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 regarding the 
                             minimum wage)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.

       (a) Annual Gross Volume of Sales.--Section 3(s)(1)(A)(ii) 
     of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
     203(s)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ``$500,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,080,000''.
       (b) Applicability of Minimum Wage.--Section 6 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (20 U.S.C. 206) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``is engaged in commerce 
     or in the production of goods for commerce, or''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``is engaged in commerce 
     or in the production of goods for commerce, or''.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues here on the floor 
for allowing me to offer these amendments. I know the leadership on the 
other side is anxious to end debate on this bill and move on to other 
things, so I will keep any remarks as brief as possible. I would be 
happy to work with the managers of the bill, the Senators from 
Massachusetts and Wyoming, to work out additional time for debate if 
that is necessary.
  The minimum wage is a debate about fairness. Many Americans see a 
minimum wage as a fundamental right and something that should be 
increased to keep up with rising costs. Many economists see it 
differently. They understand it is only an entry wage and that with on-
the-job training, most people do not stay at the minimum wage for very 
long. Economists also understand that very few people in America 
actually earn the minimum wage which is currently at $5.15 per hour. 
Those who do are mostly teenagers, part-time workers, second earners in 
a home, or workers with very limited skills.
  Nevertheless, this debate has become a measure of how much we care 
for workers, and that is what this debate should be about. If we are 
going to be serious about helping Americans earn higher wages and 
helping them keep more of what they earn, we must consider additional 
measures to ensure American prosperity.
  That is why I am offering these amendments today. They will not only 
ensure fairness for workers, they will also help protect small 
businesses that employ them. Americans realize that if we pass laws 
here in Washington that are aimed at helping workers but end up 
eliminating their jobs, we have done more harm than good.
  My first amendment, No. 158, would raise the effective minimum wage 
in each State by $2.10 per hour. Now, I know most people listening 
believe that is what this amendment does, but far from it. Without this 
amendment, the underlying legislation will partially exempt minimum 
wage workers in high-cost States that already have State minimum wage 
rates greater than $5.15 per hour, and it will completely exempt 
minimum wage workers in the highest cost States that have State minimum 
wage rates greater than $7.25. Many States--actually, 29 States--have 
already recognized that their cost of living is much higher than other 
States, and these States have passed their own minimum wage increases. 
So the cost of living all around the country is quite different.
  If you look at some high-cost cities and States, such as Boston, MA, 
for instance--35 percent higher cost of living than the national 
average--and contrast that with Alabama, Mobile, AL--it is minus 11 
percent of the national average--you have a large swing in the cost of 
living. Effectively, what we have is while Massachusetts now has a 
minimum wage of $7.50 an hour, that does not do a worker as much good 
in Massachusetts as $5.15 does for a worker in Alabama; the cost of 
living is significantly different.
  As we look around the country, we see the highest cost States are 
Massachusetts and Connecticut and Vermont and New York. You can go over 
to Illinois at 17 percent. We get down in the Southern States, and we 
see minus 10 percent of the national average in Texas or minus 11 in 
Arkansas or minus 12 in Oklahoma. The States and the cost of living 
across our country are very different. Thankfully, a number of States--
29 of them--have recognized that and raised their minimum wage.
  But if we are going to make a promise to American workers that we are 
going to raise their salary, particularly minimum wage workers, then I 
believe we should do it for all workers. We should look at how this 
underlying bill is really going to affect workers. The blue States here 
are States that get a small increase or less than 10 cents from this 
$2.10 we are talking about.
  A few minutes ago, the Senator from Washington State was giving a 
passionate plea that minimum wage workers get an increase, but 
Washington State minimum wage workers will get no increase from this 
bill. The same for Oregon and California. Our dear colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, is one of the most passionate advocates 
of increasing the minimum wage. Yet this bill we are going to pass 
today will not give one minimum wage worker in Massachusetts an 
increase. They get nothing. All of the blue States, the high-cost 
States where an increase is the most important--Vermont, Massachusetts, 
Connecticut, Rhode Island--they get no increase. Illinois gets less 
than 10 cents from the $2.10 increase. So the blue States where workers 
really could use an additional increase, particularly minimum wage 
workers, get little or nothing.
  When we look at the white States, these are the States which don't 
get the whole $2.10 increase. The red States are the only States where 
the whole $2.10 increase will actually go to minimum wage workers.
  So in effect, we are making a lot of false promises here today. A lot 
of the debate, the most passionate debate, is coming from Senators who 
represent States which will get little or nothing from this minimum 
wage increase.
  I believe we should do what the States do and recognize that the cost 
of living is different. My amendment is very simple. It says: Let's 
make all of the States the same color. Let's make them red or blue. But 
every minimum wage worker in this country should get a $2.10 increase, 
and that is what my amendment would do. It would be fair to all 
workers.
  That first amendment was actually my first and second amendment. We 
have two versions of that, Nos. 158 and 159.
  My third amendment, No. 155, would expand access to affordable health 
care to millions of Americans. It would do three things. And we do need 
to keep in mind that one of the biggest costs for workers, particularly 
those working at the minimum wage level, is health care. Very few have 
health insurance. Many are part-time workers. This amendment would do 
three things:

[[Page S1038]]

First, it would allow workers to purchase less expensive coverage 
anywhere in the country. It would also allow them to use the funds in 
their health savings accounts to pay for their health insurance policy, 
and it would allow them to roll over, or keep, $500 in unspent benefits 
in their flexible spending accounts. Many Federal employees now have 
flexible spending accounts, and they are starting to realize that even 
though it is their own money, the way this law is set up, if they don't 
spend it all, they lose what is left at the end of the year. This 
amendment would fix that.
  If Congress is serious about helping American workers, it must do 
something to address the rising costs of health care. By allowing 
Americans to purchase health coverage across State lines, they would 
gain access to less expensive health plans.
  My fourth amendment would pick up on part of the other amendment and 
focus specifically on flexible spending accounts, allowing workers to 
keep up the $500 that is unspent in those accounts at the end of the 
year so they do not have to spend it on something they do not need or 
actually lose it. Again, it is their money. We should not take it from 
them.
  My fifth amendment is tax deferment for high-growth small business 
companies. Most of the jobs in this country are actually created by 
small companies that are growing at a 10-percent rate or higher. We 
have identified--and this is something we have been working on for 
years--what is called a capital funding gap that prevents a lot of 
small businesses from getting the capital they need to continue their 
growth. Actually, if you go back to the 107th Congress, I worked on 
this when I was on the House side with Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe 
who introduced this same legislation to help small businesses keep some 
of their cash in order to grow their business. It simply allows them to 
defer Federal taxes if they are plowing it into the growth of their 
companies. This is very relevant to low-income workers because many 
low-income workers, even minimum wage workers, work for small 
businesses that are growing.
  This would help those companies grow by deferring taxes. They have to 
pay all this money back with interest, but it allows them to continue 
to grow, using their own cash flow.
  My sixth amendment, No. 159, is an important amendment for a lot of 
hourly workers who are union members. It prevents labor unions from 
using members' union dues to lobby Congress without prior separate and 
written consent of that member. Union dues, like taxes, are compulsory 
for union workers. This is the same amendment I offered to the lobby 
reform legislation, but since it was not given consideration, I am 
offering it again. This is not only an ethics and lobbying issue but a 
fairness issue for millions of union members in America. If they were 
not forced to pay for things they do not support, they could save a lot 
of money with lower union dues.
  My seventh amendment is updating the small business minimum wage 
exemption. The last time this exemption was raised, the minimum wage 
was $3.35. This simply allows small companies not to pay the minimum 
wage, particularly those offering other benefits--tips or health 
benefits--and gives an exemption. Right now, it is only $500,000 a 
year. We raise that to $1 million with this amendment, allowing the 
small businesses some flexibility in hiring teenagers and other workers 
at the trainee level.
  The last amendment, my eighth amendment, and the final amendment, 
repeals flextime benefits for Federal employees after 1 year if 
comparable benefits are not extended to private sector workers. A lot 
of people who are opposed to this flextime idea don't point out in the 
Senate that all Federal workers have this flextime benefit. Most will 
say it is truly a benefit. So it gets back to an issue of fairness. 
This amendment simply says if we do not apply this same benefit to all 
American workers in the private sector, we should not grant it to 
Federal workers. Americans are tired of us giving special benefits to 
Federal workers that are not offered in the private sector.
  In conclusion, I thank the managers of this bill, again, for allowing 
me to offer these amendments. I am happy to work out other items and 
debate them individually, if that is necessary.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to share some general thoughts 
about workers in America, the salaries they get paid, the money they 
take home, and some of the problems relative to that. I will not be 
offering any amendments at this point. I think there are some others 
who will be down in a little bit who are scheduled to be on the floor 
at this time but have not arrived.
  I will note I would like to have a vote on an amendment I have 
offered, which is an amendment that will say that if an employer hires 
a person illegally in the country, contrary to the law, the fine will 
no longer be as little as $250 but will be raised to a fine sufficient 
to deter that business from carrying on that activity: $5,000 and up.
  But I want to take a moment now to share some thoughts of a very 
serious nature about what we are dealing with. This bill that is on the 
floor today would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an 
hour. I am uneasy with Government dictating a contract between two 
private persons. But I have supported minimum wage increases on a 
number of occasions, and I think we will see one pass this time in some 
fashion. I hope it will be passed in a manner that I will be able to 
support final passage.
  But I share the concern of a lot of people who support this 
legislation; and that concern is, the incomes and the salaries of lower 
wage workers have not kept up with the salaries of higher income 
workers. I know the free marketeers argue that later on wages will 
increase for low-income workers, but I am not satisfied with that 
argument. The economy is doing very well. Bonuses and salaries for top-
wage people have surged. We have not seen sufficient increases in 
salaries for lower income workers.
  I am going to share some numbers with this body that I believe will 
put a finger on the real problem. It is not that George Bush does not 
want people to have salaries. George Bush and Members of this Senate 
have supported policies that, without their knowledge, perhaps, are 
having an adverse impact on wages. Maybe there are a lot of reasons we 
are having an adverse impact on wages, but I am going to talk about 
one.
  We can be certain that illegal immigration is suppressing workers' 
wages. Significant economic evidence indicates the presence of large 
amounts of illegal labor in low-skilled job sectors--that is low-income 
workers--is depressing the wages of American workers. Harvard 
economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz--Professor Borjas has 
written a fabulous book on immigration, ``Heaven's Door.'' I am sure my 
friend Senator Kennedy knows of Harvard. He needs to introduce himself 
to Professor Borjas, I would suggest. Harvard economists George Borjas 
and Lawrence Katz estimate that the influx of low-skilled, low-wage 
immigration from 1980 to 2000 has resulted in a 3-percent decrease in 
wages for the average American worker--not just low-income workers. The 
average American worker has seen a 3-percent decline in his wages, and 
it has cut wages for native-born high school dropouts--those are the 
people most often being paid near minimum wage; the poorest 10 percent 
of the workforce--by 8 percent.
  That is a lot. The 3 percent amounts to, assuming they made $10 an 
hour, $12 a week or $600 a year. For the poorer worker, the 8 percent 
amounts to more than $1,200 a year in income. Now, that is $100 a month 
extra money they could be paid, but they are not being paid because of 
the large influx of illegal workers or immigrant workers into the 
country.
  According to Alan Tonelson, another expert, a research fellow at the 
U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation--this is his 
quote--


[[Page S1039]]


       [T]he most important statistics available show conclusively 
     that, far from easing shortages, illegal immigrants are 
     adding to labor gluts in America. Specifically, wages in 
     sectors highly dependent on illegals, when adjusted for 
     inflation, are either stagnant or have actually fallen.

  Wages have gone down, not even gone up a little bit. They have gone 
down. Think about it.
  Tonelson is referring to Labor Department data and information from 
the Pew Hispanic Center that--Mr. Tonelson says--``provide compelling 
evidence illegal immigrants have been used deliberately to force down 
wages.''
  For example, he cites data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
for the following information.
  Madam President, I see Senator Salazar is here. And, as I indicated, 
I say to Senator Salazar, I will yield. I will wrap up briefly and 
yield to you because I know you were previously approved to speak next.
  As I was saying, for example, Tonelson cites data from the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the following information: Inflation-
adjusted wages for the broad food and services and drinking 
establishments category--that is the Labor Department category--between 
the years 2000 and 2005 fell 1.65 percent. Pew estimates that illegal 
immigrants comprise 17 percent of food preparation workers, 20 percent 
of cooks, and 23 percent of dishwashers.
  So they say: Well, you cannot get people to work and be cooks and 
dishwashers in restaurants. You cannot get them. Well, if they were 
paid a little better wage, maybe they could get them. Instead of 
cutting wages from 2000 to 2005, maybe some people would be willing to 
work.
  He goes on to note: Inflation-adjusted wages for the food 
manufacturing industry--the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal 
immigrants comprise 14 percent of that workforce--fell 2.24 percent 
from 2000 to 2005.
  He also goes on to note: Inflation-adjusted wages for hotel workers--
the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that illegal immigrants make up 10 
percent of that workforce--fell 1 percent from 2000 to 2005.
  So, Madam President, I will wrap up at this point but will talk about 
it some more later. We need to create a lawful immigration system that 
does allow workers to come to our country, but the number and skill 
sets they bring ought to be such that they do not aversely impact to a 
significant degree the wages of American citizens. How more basic can 
it be than that, see? I am afraid we need to confront that.
  So my amendment is just one important step I will ask for a vote on 
that will allow workers to come legally, but if they come illegally, 
the employers who hire them can be punished to a degree more 
commensurate with the seriousness of the offense.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair. I see my good friend from 
Colorado, former attorney general. We worked together on a number of 
issues. I will be proud to yield to him at this time.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank my friend from Alabama. And at 
the outset, before I make a comment about the matter that is pending 
before the Senate today, I want to also commend him for his work on 
energy independence. I think it demonstrates how we are able in this 
body to bring together Republicans and conservatives, Democrats and 
progressives, on what is one of the signature issues of our time. I 
very much look forward to working with him, as well as with my other 
colleagues on this very important agenda in this 110th Congress.
  Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Reid 
substitute amendment that is a very important matter that is now before 
this body. I applaud the leadership of the floor managers, Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Enzi. I very much look forward to a successful 
conclusion of this legislation.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would raise the Federal minimum 
wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over a period of 2 years. I am 
proud to be a supporter and a cosponsor of this measure which will help 
lift millions of Americans into a better way of life.
  The Federal minimum wage was first established through the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938. At that time, the Federal Government set the 
Federal minimum wage at 25 cents an hour, which would amount to $3.22 
an hour in today's dollars. Since then, Congress has used its wisdom 
and increased the minimum wage eight times under both Democratic and 
Republican administrations.
  Unfortunately, American workers have now had to wait 10 years since 
the last increase--the longest that workers have gone without an 
increase in the entire history our Nation has had a minimum wage law.
  American workers, in my view, have waited long enough for their 
raise. The minimum wage is not just about fairness. It is also about 
economic necessity. While Congress has neglected to raise the minimum 
wage, the cost of living has continued to skyrocket. Since we last 
raised the minimum wage, take the following examples on the escalation 
of the cost of living: Gas prices have increased by 36 percent. Health 
insurance rates have gone up by 33 percent. College tuition rates have 
gone up by 35 percent. And housing costs have gone up by 38 percent. 
There have been all of those increases during all of that time, and the 
minimum wage for Americans has gone unchanged.
  Without any increase in their wages, these rising costs will force 
many minimum wage workers to make very difficult choices. Sometimes 
they must ask themselves: Should they pay the rent or buy groceries? 
Should they pay the heating bill or buy diapers? Some of the very 
basic, essential questions of life have to be answered by some of these 
minimum wage workers every day.
  Indeed, desperate times often have called for desperate measures. Our 
inaction here in Washington has spurred a number of different States, 
including my State of Colorado, to take action on their own. In 
November, the people of my State voted to increase the State's minimum 
wage by a very substantial margin. Twenty-eight other States and the 
District of Columbia have also taken action to raise wages above the 
Federal minimum of $5.15 an hour.
  In my view, unless we act as a Congress, what will end up happening 
is we will continue to see a hodgepodge of minimum wage increases in 
the 50 States of our Nation. I think it would be much preferable to 
business as well as to the people of America to have a Federal minimum 
wage that applies across the entire country.
  The House of Representatives has already acted quickly on this 
legislation. It is simple and straightforward. It is now time for the 
Senate to act, and for this long overdue increase to finally become 
law.
  Make no mistake, we all know this legislation will make a significant 
difference in the lives of working families. The increase will directly 
impact 13 million Americans and nearly 6 million children.
  Do you hear that, Madam President? It will impact 13 million 
Americans and nearly 6 million children who would see their parents' 
earnings increase.
  In Colorado, raising the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would 
directly raise the pay of 87,000 workers and benefit 251,000 workers 
overall.
  This increase will mean an additional $4,400 in annual wages. That 
money is money that could be used for a number of great 
essentials: Almost 2 years of childcare, more than full tuition for a 
community college degree, a year and a half of heat and electricity, 
more than a year of groceries, and more than 8 months of rent.

  I support doing everything we can to help these workers. As we help 
these workers, I also believe we must do everything we can to help the 
small businesses of America. That is why I am supporting the Reid 
substitute amendment that has the targeted tax relief to help small 
businesses thrive.
  Having had a history of working as a small business person for a long 
time, I know the struggle small businesses engage in every day. I also 
know that it is small businesses that are the engine of most of the job 
creation in America today. That is true whether it is in Colorado or in 
the States of Wyoming or Massachusetts. Small businesses are, in fact, 
the backbone of job creation. In my State alone, we have 500,000 small 
businesses. And 98 percent of the businesses that hire workers in 
Colorado are, in fact, small businesses. These

[[Page S1040]]

businesses create jobs. They fuel our economy. They provide the 
livelihood for millions of workers, many of them low-wage earners. We 
must ensure that these small businesses continue to serve this vital 
purpose.
  In my first hearing as a new member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, we 
heard from small business owners who testified that an increase in the 
minimum wage would, in some cases, force them to consider whether to 
eliminate some workers or cut back the hours of others. They also 
testified that some of the costs of the increase could be defrayed 
through specific tax incentives to help them meet the expenses 
associated with improving and expanding their businesses through 
construction and renovation and tax credits to help them hire more low-
wage workers.
  Last week I introduced legislation called the Business RAISE Act to 
help small businesses with business tax relief. My bill contains some 
of the tax incentives we heard about in the Finance Committee hearing. 
Specifically, my legislation, now incorporated into the Reid 
substitute, would allow 15 year depreciation periods for restaurant 
improvements, new restaurant construction, and improvements to business 
property that is owned as opposed to leased. That simply makes economic 
sense. When you buy equipment or build a restaurant, you know that a 
39-year depreciation does not reflect economic reality. You know that 
those changes that have to be made will have to be made in 5 or 10 
years. So allowing these items to be expensed over a 15-year period 
will be a great incentive and of great assistance to small businesses 
and restaurants to do what they have to do to improve their businesses.
  I also have proposed--and it has been included in the Reid substitute 
amendment--the expansion of the eligibility for the work opportunity 
tax credit to all disabled veterans. This legislation would expand the 
eligibility for the work opportunity tax credit to all disabled 
veterans. In these days of Afghanistan and Iraqi veteran forces 
returning back to our Nation with the kinds of injuries that many of 
them have sustained and some of the disabilities they have to suffer 
through, it is important for us as a nation to do everything we can to 
provide them with an opportunity. These work opportunity tax credits 
that would apply to all disabled veterans in America would be part of 
our Nation's promise to make sure we are taking care of the veterans of 
America.
  I am proud to have worked with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, 
with Republicans and Democratic Senators in the Finance Committee, to 
have many of these provisions included in the legislation that was 
reported unanimously out of committee. Those recommendations have now 
been included in the Reid substitute amendment which is currently 
pending. But we could have dealt with these issues separately. The 
political reality is that we will do two good things at the same time. 
We will raise the minimum wage for Americans, which has been on hold 
for far too long, and we will provide incentives to allow small 
businesses to continue to thrive with the tax incentives we are 
creating in this legislation. Toward that end, I am hopeful that this 
body of Senators will move quickly and expeditiously in approving the 
provisions of the Reid substitute amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. For the information of our Members, we will have a 
consent agreement offered in a short while. It is the intention of 
Senator Enzi and myself to have two votes, one on the Sununu-Kerry 
amendment on small business and one on Feingold, which is the ``Buy 
American'' amendment. We will have voice votes on those two items and 
then rollcall votes on an Allard amendment and a rollcall vote on a 
DeMint amendment in the range of 5 o'clock, for the benefit of our 
colleagues. We will offer a consent agreement shortly to that effect. 
But for the information of our colleagues, that is the intention. We 
are making good progress on other amendments as well.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, since the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938, Congress has required employers to pay a minimum wage. Congress 
enacted the current general minimum wage of $5.15 an hour in 1996. That 
works out to be about $10,712 a year. Currently, about 2 million 
workers get paid the Federal minimum wage or less.
  A decade has passed since the last increase. That marks the longest 
period in history without an adjustment to the minimum wage. During 
that time, a majority of States have enacted minimum wages higher than 
the current Federal level. This includes my home State of Montana.
  Montanans recognized that the minimum wage must be increased. I am 
proud that in November our State voted to raise that State's minimum 
wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 an hour. It was a step in the right 
direction.
  An increase in the minimum wage would affect millions more than those 
who earn minimum wage because many workers earn slightly more than 
minimum wage and may also see an increase.
  Some worry that an increase in the minimum wage will burden small 
businesses. Small businesses create jobs, economic opportunity, and 
technological innovation.
  Smaller businesses employ a disproportionate share of workers earning 
the minimum wage. Representatives of small businesses have, therefore, 
argued that any increase should be accompanied by tax incentives 
targeted for small businesses in order to lower their costs.
  There are about 23 million small businesses in our country. 
Businesses with fewer than 500 employees represent more than 99.9 
percent of all American businesses. They pay nearly half the total 
American private payroll. They have generated 60 to 80 percent of the 
new jobs annually over the last decade, and they employ 41 percent of 
high-tech workers.
  Small business is particularly important in rural States such as 
Montana. Rural communities generally do not have large employers. Rural 
families rely on small businesses for jobs.
  The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over taxes. The committee held 
a hearing on January 10 of this year entitled ``Tax Incentives for 
Businesses in Response to a Minimum Wage Increase.'' The committee 
heard from a variety of witnesses, including labor economists, small 
business owners, and tax experts.
  Following that hearing, the committee held a markup on January 17. 
The committee considered an original bill called the Small Business and 
Work Opportunity Act of 2007. That bill is a revenue-neutral bill 
containing a number of tax incentives for small businesses and 
businesses that hire minimum wage workers. The committee favorably 
reported that bill by unanimous voice vote, and the majority leader 
included that bill in its entirety in his amendment to the bill before 
us today.
  The substitute would help business owners to afford new equipment and 
property for their businesses by extending section 179 expensing for 
another year.
  In order to carry out day-to-day activities, small business owners 
are often required to invest significant amounts of money in 
depreciable property, such as machinery. While these large purchases 
are necessary to operate a business, they generally require 
depreciation across a number of years. But depreciation requires 
additional bookkeeping. Section 179 expensing allows for immediate 100 
percent deduction of the cost of most personal property purchased for 
use in a business. In

[[Page S1041]]

2007, small business owners could deduct up to $112,000 of equipment 
expenses.
  When small business owners are able to expense equipment, they no 
longer have to keep depreciation records on that equipment. So 
extending section 179 expensing would ease small business bookkeeping 
burdens.
  The substitute would allow small business owners to quickly recover 
the cost of improvements to their establishments through extension and 
expansion of the 15-year straight line appreciation period for 
leaseholds and restaurant improvements.
  Allowing retailers and restaurants to use a 15-year straight line 
depreciation period means that when an entrepreneur opens a business 
and remodels the property, that investment could be recovered over a 
period of time more closely reflecting wear and tear. It used to be 39 
years.
  In 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act shortened the cost recovery 
of certain leasehold improvements and restaurant property for 39 years 
to 15 years for the remainder of 2004 and 2005. The Tax Relief and 
Health Care Act of 2006 extended this provision to the end of 2007.
  At the Finance Committee minimum wage hearing held January 10, small 
business owners testified that a shorter 15-year recovery period for 
restaurant and building leasehold property reflects the true economic 
life of the improvements. And they testified that businesses put more 
money into their operations if they know they can recover their 
improvement costs over 15 years instead of 39.
  The substitute would extend the 15-year recovery period for leasehold 
and restaurant improvements and would also broaden the provision to 
allow retail owners and new restaurants to take advantage of this 
shortened depreciation period.
  These are changes that Senator Conrad, Senator Kerry, Senator Snowe, 
and Senator Kyl have championed.
  The substitute would simplify the way that small businesses keep 
records for tax purposes. The cash method of accounting is often the 
easiest method of accounting. Allowing small business to use the cash 
method reduces the administrative and tax compliance burden of these 
businesses. The substitute would let more businesses take advantage of 
this method. Businesses with gross receipts up to $10 million would be 
able to use the cash method.
  The substitute would also help businesses provide jobs for workers 
who have experienced barriers to entering the workforce by extending 
and expanding the work opportunity tax credit.
  WOTC, otherwise known as the work opportunity tax credit, encourages 
business to hire workers who might not otherwise find work. These 
employers teach workers new skills and how to be a good employee. The 
workers serve our food, sell us goods, paint our houses, and provide 
care to our sick and elderly.
  WOTC, the work opportunity tax credit, has been remarkably 
successful. By reducing expenditures on public assistance, WOTC is 
highly cost effective. The business community is highly supportive of 
these credits. Especially industries such as retail and restaurants 
that hire many low-skilled workers find it useful.

  The substitute would extend WOTC for 5 years, and the substitute 
would expand the credit to make it available to employers who hire 
veterans disabled after 9/11, something I think is very important for 
us to do.
  As of July 2006, nearly 20,000 members of our Armed Forces were 
wounded in action in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. Many of these soldiers are now permanently disabled and do not 
know what they are going to do once they return home. We need to help 
these young men and women, and a modest tax incentive to get them back 
in the workforce is a good place to start.
  This is an issue the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, championed.
  I think we should make WOTC permanent. Senator Snowe and I introduced 
a bill to do just that. But to accommodate other Senators' priorities, 
the committee agreed to a 5-year extension in the bill that is now 
included in the substitute.
  The substitute helps small businesses by modifying S corporation 
rules. These modifications reduce the effect of what some call the 
sting tax; that is, these modifications improve the viability of 
community banks.
  These are changes that Senator Lincoln and Senator Hatch have 
championed.
  These are all important ways to help small businesses succeed. These 
provisions will spur investment and, thus, create jobs. They will 
provide greater opportunity for workers looking for a job. They all 
enjoy strong support.
  Senator Grassley, members of the Finance Committee, and I have worked 
to develop a balanced package, and I believe we have done just that.
  The language included in the substitute is a responsible package that 
will ensure the continued growth and success of small businesses. And 
we have also paid for it. Most of the offsets are proposals the Senate 
has supported several times before. The offsets include a proposal to 
end future tax benefits for abusive sale-in-lease-out tax shelters, 
known as SILOs. These deals are foreign tax-exempt entities to generate 
sham tax deductions.
  Even after Congress shut these deals down in 2004, some taxpayers 
continue to take excessive, unwarranted depreciation deductions on 
German sewer systems and the like. The Internal Revenue Service says it 
has 1,500 of these deals under audit involving billions--yes, 
billions--of dollars. At a minimum, it is time to shut these foreign 
deals down. There are domestic deals, too, but this provision only 
affects foreign deals.
  Another offset doubles fines, penalties, and interest on taxes owed 
as a result of using certain abusive offshore financial arrangements to 
avoid paying taxes. Taxpayers will hide their money from the IRS 
through offshore credit cards and other shady financial arrangements 
need to get the message that this Congress is serious about ending 
these abuses.
  The substitute closes a corporate loophole used by companies that 
reinvented themselves as foreign corporations to avoid paying taxes in 
our country. In March 2002, Senator Grassley and I made it clear to 
those who put profits ahead of patriotism did so at their own peril. 
The substitute would treat those who moved offshore after that date 
like a U.S. company, and the substitute would make those companies pay 
U.S. taxes.
  Further, under the substitute, companies that paid to settle 
Government investigations or that paid punitive damages ordered by the 
courts will be prohibited from taking tax deductions for those 
payments.
  Deducting these amounts can reduce the true cost of these settling by 
as much as a third. Deducting these amounts would effectively shift the 
tax burden onto the backs of other taxpayers who pay what they 
rightfully owe. Those deductions should, therefore, be prohibited.
  The hard-working American taxpayers we are trying to help in this 
substitute should not have to pay more taxes because some taxpayers are 
abusing the tax system through tax shelters. They also should not have 
to bear the burden of civil settlements and punitive damages paid by 
companies that engage in questionable behavior.
  Another offset would limit the annual amount of nonqualified deferred 
compensation for corporate executives. Rank-and-file workers generally 
have to pay taxes on their compensation when they earn it. The 
exception is deferred compensation provided through qualified 
retirement plans with statutory limits on contributions and benefits. A 
401(k) is the best example.
  Management, on the other hand, has no limit on the amount that can be 
deferred to nonqualified arrangements--no limit. The substitute sets 
the annual limit at the lesser of 100 percent of taxable compensation 
or $1 million.
  These are sound changes. I urge my colleagues to support the 
substitute.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 116

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I want to take a moment to explain my 
amendment No. 116. This amendment gives the States the rights and the 
flexibility to determine a minimum wage that works best for them. My 
provision does not allow States to go any lower than the minimum wage 
they currently operate within their State.

[[Page S1042]]

  This is an important amendment for small business, an important 
amendment as far as the States are concerned because cost of living and 
wages vary dramatically from State to State. A one-size-fits-all 
federally imposed minimum wage does not take into account the economic 
realities that exist in each State.
  The States are already fulfilling their responsibilities of 
regulating wages. Currently, 28 States and DC have minimum wage rates 
above the Federal level. Because the minimum wage varies by State, this 
legislation threatens to impose a 41-percent increase on some States 
and a 0-percent increase on others.
  Let's give the States the right and flexibility to regulate minimum 
wage. State legislatures are closer to the people and are better 
situated than the Federal Government to set a minimum wage. A one-size-
fits-all solution under Federal mandate is not the answer to protecting 
America's economic security.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment that 
gives the States the flexibility to determine what is best for its own 
citizens.
  When it is appropriate, Madam President, I will call for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:10 
p.m. today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Allard amendment 
No. 116, and that the time until 5:10 p.m. be equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order 
to the amendment prior to the vote; further, that upon disposition of 
the Allard amendment, the Senate then resume Sununu amendment No. 112 
and that Kerry amendment No. 187 to the Sununu amendment be considered 
and agreed to, the Sununu amendment, as amended, be agreed to, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided, that the Senate 
then consider Feingold amendment No. 127 and that the amendment be 
modified with the language at the desk, and that it be agreed to, and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Amendment No. 128 to Amendment No. 100

      (Purpose: To direct the Administrator of the Small Business 
   Administration to establish a pilot program to provide regulatory 
    compliance assistance to small business concerns, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 128 and ask that it be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr. 
     Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 128 to amendment No. 
     100.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask that the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the information of our 
colleagues, the Feingold amendment is an amendment that has been 
accepted by the Senate on a number of different occasions. It provides 
information-reporting on the buying of American goods. This is an 
effort to increase and support American workers. It has been accepted. 
We welcome that amendment.
  The other amendment which my friend and colleague will speak to, 
Senators Kerry, Snowe, and Sununu, I strongly support. This deals with 
the women's business center amendment. Our friends on the Small 
Business Committee have worked long and hard on this. It is a very 
interesting, innovative, and creative program that has created 
thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in wages, and it deserves 
favorable consideration. My colleague will speak to that in just a few 
moments.
  On the Allard amendment, Members should understand what the effect of 
the Allard amendment is, and that is effectively to repeal the minimum 
wage for any States among the 50 States. That effectively is what the 
Allard amendment does. It says:

       Notwithstanding, any employer should not be required to pay 
     an employee the wage that is greater than the minimum wage 
     provided by law of the State in which the employee is 
     employed, and not less than the minimum wage in effect in 
     that State.

  So effectively it eliminates the minimum wage.
  It is true we have had the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. The 
underlying bill raises it to $7.25, with a very modest tax offset. 
Hopefully we will have an opportunity to vote on that.
  It is true that the existing minimum wage is $5.15 an hour and a 
number of States have gone above this, but the concept of the minimum 
wage was that it was going to be a minimum payment, a minimum standard. 
What was accepted at the time of the minimum wage is that in this 
country, we didn't want to accelerate a rush to the bottom so that we 
would have competition in the various States to pay the lowest possible 
wages--sweat labor--in order to try to attract industries into those 
particular States, but to provide a minimum standard. Hopefully it was 
going to be a living standard for workers who worked 40 hours a week, 
52 weeks of the year.
  I respect the Senator from Colorado, his view on this issue, but if 
we accepted the amendment of the Senator, it would effectively 
eliminate the minimum wage as we know it.
  I think the reason for the minimum wage, as we have tried to point 
out during the course of this debate in discussion, was to establish a 
basic floor as a standard for payment for individuals who worked long 
and hard in some of the most difficult jobs in this country. We have 
eliminated child labor. We have established laws with regard to 
overtime. We have tried to be not only the strongest economy in the 
world but one that is going to respect workers and workers' rights and 
workers' interests and workers' families. The minimum wage does not do 
so at the present time, but many of us will continue to battle to try 
to make sure it does. The Allard amendment brings us all in the 
opposite direction.
  If I have any time left, I will reserve it. I know the Senator from 
Colorado will use his time.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reiterate, my amendment gives 
flexibility to States to set their own minimum wage. What is an 
appropriate minimum wage level for one State does not apply for 
another, and has different potential effects on the ability for 
economic growth in that State. When you vote for my amendment, you are 
voting for State flexibility. The States are already fulfilling their 
responsibilities of regulating wages. My amendment does not allow the 
States to set a minimum wage lower than their current operating minimum 
wage as of January 1, 2007.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for the Allard amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if there are no further speakers--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield a couple of minutes. I understand we 
have 3 or 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 1 
minute.
  Mr. DeMINT. I understand we just have a few minutes. A few minutes 
ago, we thought we would be voting on one of the DeMint amendments, and 
we are still not sure if that is going to happen.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I find that there is strong 
support. We are just having difficulty getting a final time to be able 
to slot it in at this particular time. I am very hopeful we will be 
able to have that sometime in the very near future, and I will keep in 
close touch with the Senator. I thank him for his cooperation. I hope 
we will be able to.


                           Amendment No. 158

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I will take a couple of moments to 
reexplain the amendment just in case we get to vote on it tonight or 
early in the morning.

[[Page S1043]]

  We just heard Senator Allard talk about the need for State 
flexibility because of the different costs of living, the different 
economies, the different situations. In the United States today, we 
have 29 States that have set a minimum wage higher than the Federal 
minimum wage. That action really reflects the cost of living in 
different parts of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The remainder of the time is controlled by the 
Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. DeMINT. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from South Carolina seeks time? I yield time 
to the Senator.
  Mr. DeMINT. We will talk until the next vote, how about that? What 
time is the next vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next vote is in 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator from South Carolina will yield, Senator 
Enzi would also like to speak briefly on this amendment, if you will 
allow him at least a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Two minutes.
  Senator Allard has made a good case for the need for States to have 
flexibility to adapt the minimum wage to their particular State's cost 
of living. That is one option.
  The amendment I have is quite different. It recognizes that we do 
have very different costs of living, such as in Massachusetts, Boston 
is 35 percent above the national average cost of living. If you go 
south to Mobile, AL, it is 11 percent less than the average cost of 
living. So the current $5.15 minimum wage which is in Alabama actually 
has more buying power than the $7.50 minimum wage which is now in 
effect in Massachusetts.
  We are proposing that we be fair with this Federal minimum wage 
increase. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that, despite his 
passion for low-income workers and raising the minimum wage for 
workers, workers in 29 States will not get the full benefit. In fact, 
workers in Massachusetts will get no raise at all. Workers in 
Washington, Oregon, or California will get no raise, as will the 
minimum wage workers in Vermont or Connecticut or Rhode Island. All the 
States here in blue, the highest cost of living States in our country, 
will get either no increase or less than a 10-cent increase from this 
$2.10. The States in the white get some increase but, again, not the 
full increase. Really, most of the States that would get the full $2.10 
increase are low-cost-of-living States around our country, again where 
the cost of living is more in tune with the $5.15 minimum wage.
  Frankly, I would like every worker to be making a lot more money, and 
there are a lot of other things we can do to make that happen. But if 
we are going to have a Federal minimum wage, let it reflect the cost of 
living in every State. Let's give every minimum wage worker in this 
country a raise when we pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 1 minute under 
the previous order.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Minnesota 
earlier today, Ms. Klobuchar, and thought she had some very convincing 
comments regarding the tip credit. In conjunction with that, she 
suggested that States ought to be able to do what they want to do. That 
is what this bill does.
  Even if one accepts the idea that the minimum wage should be used as 
a tool of economic policy, it is quite obviously a tool that should be 
used with precision, not indiscriminately wielded like a sledge hammer.
  State and local economies are vastly different, however, one-size-
fits-all Federal legislation totally dismisses those important 
differences. It also misses the point that states are in a far better 
position to determine what is best for their local economies. Federal 
``solutions'' often ignore local and regional experience and judgment, 
or worse still, just arrogantly cast it aside.
  There is just no room for debate over the fact that there is a vast 
difference from State to State in terms of the cost of living, the cost 
of doing business, and the purchasing power of a dollar. A nationally 
based minimum wage adjustment simply ignores these important 
differences. It discriminates against both employees and employers 
based solely upon where they choose to live and work or to establish 
their businesses.
  Proponents of an across-the-board Federal minimum wage increase might 
be able to ignore these realities and claim that somehow the Federal 
Government was ``forced'' to act because States ``refused'' to do so. 
Unfortunately for those who make this argument, nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  State legislatures have been, and continue to be extremely active in 
considering minimum wage legislation that is appropriately tailored to 
the economic realities of their respective States. Consider that 6 
states this year have passed ballot initiatives raising their State's 
minimum wage law, and 29 States now have minimum wage rates higher than 
the current Federal level. I urge my colleagues to consider that States 
and localities may have a better idea of what their appropriate minimum 
wage level should be than the Federal Government. When the Federal 
level does not fit, States and localities act.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Allard amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I recognize that all or nearly all time 
under control has expired, but I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute on an amendment on which the chairman and ranking member have 
come to agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 112

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, Senator Kerry spoke earlier about the 
importance of women's business centers. I offered an amendment at the 
beginning of the debate a couple of days ago that would ensure 
continuation of funding for some of the high-performing women's 
business centers across the country, one of them being in Portsmouth, 
NH, a small facility that manages to serve 1,300 women. It covers 
Maine, covers northeastern Massachusetts, as well as clients across New 
Hampshire. Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe offered a modification to 
the amendment which we have agreed to accept, I think. I hope that is 
going to be passed on a voice vote and then my amendment with his 
improvements will be voted on by voice.
  I thank Chairman Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Ranking Member Enzi, and my 
dear friend from Maine, Senator Snowe for working with me to ensure 
that this can get done in a timely way. This continuation of funding 
will make a difference for, of course, dozens of business centers, but 
that translates into thousands of women entrepreneurs across the 
country. Those small firms in New Hampshire and across the country are 
the ones that really drive economic growth. I appreciate the work they 
have done, Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 116

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is consumed. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 116. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sununu
     Thomas

                                NAYS--69

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey

[[Page S1044]]


     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Johnson
     Stevens
  The amendment (No. 116) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I believe under the consent agreement we were going to 
act now on the Sununu amendment 112 and the Kerry amendment 187; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not been sent up yet.


                 Amendment No. 187 to Amendment No. 112

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr. 
     Kerry, for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Sununu, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 187 to amendment No. 112.

  The amendment is as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 187

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. RENEWAL GRANTS FOR WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 656) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Continued Funding for Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--A nonprofit organization described in 
     paragraph (2) shall be eligible to receive, subject to 
     paragraph (3), a 3-year grant under this subsection.
       ``(2) Applicability.--A nonprofit organization described in 
     this paragraph is a nonprofit organization that has received 
     funding under subsection (b) or (l).
       ``(3) Application and approval criteria.--
       ``(A) Criteria.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Administrator shall develop and publish criteria for the 
     consideration and approval of applications by nonprofit 
     organizations under this subsection.
       ``(B) Contents.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the conditions for participation in the grant 
     program under this subsection shall be the same as the 
     conditions for participation in the program under subsection 
     (l), as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       ``(C) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the deadline to submit applications for each fiscal year, 
     the Administrator shall approve or deny any application under 
     this subsection and notify the applicant for each such 
     application.
       ``(4) Award of grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Administrator shall make a grant for the 
     Federal share of the cost of activities described in the 
     application to each applicant approved under this subsection.
       ``(B) Amount.--A grant under this subsection shall be for 
     not more than $150,000, for each year of that grant.
       ``(C) Federal share.--The Federal share under this 
     subsection shall be not more than 50 percent.
       ``(D) Priority.--In allocating funds made available for 
     grants under this section, the Administrator shall give 
     applications under this subsection or subsection (l) priority 
     over first-time applications under subsection (b).
       ``(5) Renewal.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may renew a grant 
     under this subsection for additional 3-year periods, if the 
     nonprofit organization submits an application for such 
     renewal at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Administrator may establish.
       ``(B) Unlimited renewals.--There shall be no limitation on 
     the number of times a grant may be renewed under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(n) Privacy Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--A women's business center may not 
     disclose the name, address, or telephone number of any 
     individual or small business concern receiving assistance 
     under this section without the consent of such individual or 
     small business concern, unless--
       ``(A) the Administrator is ordered to make such a 
     disclosure by a court in any civil or criminal enforcement 
     action initiated by a Federal or State agency; or
       ``(B) the Administrator considers such a disclosure to be 
     necessary for the purpose of conducting a financial audit of 
     a women's business center, but a disclosure under this 
     subparagraph shall be limited to the information necessary 
     for such audit.
       ``(2) Administration use of information.--This subsection 
     shall not--
       ``(A) restrict Administration access to program activity 
     data; or
       ``(B) prevent the Administration from using client 
     information (other than the information described in 
     subparagraph (A)) to conduct client surveys.
       ``(3) Regulations.--The Administrator shall issue 
     regulations to establish standards for requiring disclosures 
     during a financial audit under paragraph (1)(B).''.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 29(l) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 656(l)) is repealed effective October 1 of the first 
     full fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Transitional Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, a grant or cooperative agreement that was awarded 
     under subsection (l) of section 29 of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 656), on or before the day before the date 
     described in subsection (b) of this section, shall remain in 
     full force and effect under the terms, and for the duration, 
     of such grant or agreement.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I support this amendment offered by 
Senators Kerry, Snowe and Sununu. This amendment provides essential 
ongoing support to Women Business Centers and has received bipartisan 
support in the small business committee and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Women small business entrepreneurs are making gains in today's 
economy and have grown dramatically over the last few decades. In my 
State of Massachusetts women-owned small businesses have grown by 13 
percent since 1997. But they still account for only one-third of all 
small businesses in the State. Nationally, they make up only 28 percent 
of all small businesses.
  Women Business Centers provide essential training and support to 
women of all incomes, and of all races to help them start and grow 
their small business. These centers even the playing field for women 
entrepreneurs who still face significant obstacles in the world of 
business.
  The Center for Women and Enterprise in Massachusetts, has served over 
12,000 women who created 16,000 new jobs and generated more than $470 
million in wages since 1995.
  We must make this program permanent and make sure that women can 
participate in small business that is so vital to our national economic 
growth.
  Women entrepreneurs are precious national assets that employ millions 
of workers and generate billions in wages. We should not limit their 
potential.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to support our women 
entrepreneurs.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 187. 
I offer this amendment along with my colleagues Senators Snowe and 
Sununu to keep open our Nation's most experienced and successful 
women's business centers. These centers--including those in Boston and 
Worcester in my home State of Massachusetts, in Portsmouth, NH, and in 
Wiscasset, ME--provide business counseling and financial literacy 
training to women who want to start or grow a business. We need to pass 
this amendment so that the women's business centers have access to the 
Federal matching money that is necessary to raise private sector 
capital.
  For several years now Senator Snowe and I have been working on a 
solution to keep open the most experienced centers. Last summer our 
committee passed a bill that would keep these centers open, though it 
did not become law. I want to thank Senator Snowe and her staff for 
their collaboration on this important issue, and I also want to thank 
Senator Sununu for working with us to incorporate changes into his 
original amendment that reflect our committee's work. I thank the very 
able and resourceful executive directors of the women's business 
centers for working with us all these years to keep their centers 
going, providing women with the tools they need to make their 
businesses succeed. In my home State, that includes our current leader, 
Ms. Donna Good, and her predecessor, Andrea Silbert, who started the 
Center for Women & Enterprise.
  In my 21 years on the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have consistently promoted women entrepreneurs and 
fought for adequate funding for the women's business centers. As 
chairman of the committee in the 110th Congress, I will do the same and 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment. This important legislation will allow established women's 
business centers to receive renewability grants after their initial 
grant cycle of matching funds has expired.
  The concept of sustainability grants is something I originally 
introduced in 1999 with my Women's Business Center

[[Page S1045]]

Sustainability Pilot Program--a bill that garnered widespread 
bipartisan support and was instrumental in securing additional funding 
to allow successful and effective centers keep their doors open for 
women entrepreneurs in their community. And last Congress Senator Snowe 
and I introduced the Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act, 
which allowed proven centers with a successful track record to receive 
additional 3-year renewal grants beyond an initial 4-year grant cycle.
  The amendment we introduced today builds upon our previous 
legislative proposals by giving established women's business centers 
the ability to apply for 3-year grants on an ongoing basis. It would 
provide women's business centers with a permanent funding stream in the 
future.
  By adopting this amendment today, we will ensure that successful and 
experienced centers are able to continue serving entrepreneurs by 
giving women-owned small businesses the tools they need to grow and 
flourish.
  Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to speak to the second-degree 
amendment currently pending today that Senator Kerry and I have 
introduced along with Senator Sununu. I would first like to commend my 
colleague Senator Sununu for taking the initiative and offering the 
original women's business center amendment that includes critical 
legislation to keep this longstanding program operating.
  This second-degree amendment expands upon Senator Sununu's amendment 
by addressing the continuation of the women's business center 
sustainability program, a 5-year pilot program that expired in October 
2003. I am pleased to have worked closely with Senator Kerry, the 
original author of this program, to find a permanent solution to keep 
the most experienced centers funded and operating.
  We cannot afford to ignore, or minimize, the extraordinary 
contributions America's businesswomen are making to our economy, our 
culture, and our future. The achievements of women entrepreneurs are 
undeniable. Women-owned firms generate almost $2.5 trillion in 
revenues. They employ more than 19 million workers and are the fastest 
growing segment of today's economy. In my home State of Maine alone, 
more an 63,000 women-owned firms generate an astounding $9 billion in 
sales. That is truly a record we can all be proud of.
  There can be no doubt the Small Business Administration's, SBA, 
women's business center program has been an indispensable party on the 
path to success. In 2006, the 99 women's business centers nationwide 
served more than 144,000 clients across the country. Whether focused on 
expanding access to more affordable employee health coverage--enhancing 
Federal contract procurement opportunities for women-owned businesses--
or improving access to capital, the women's business center program has 
been an invaluable resource to women-owned businesses in my home State 
of Maine and across the Nation.
  The fact is, since the program was created in 1988, Congress renewed 
the program seven times, and made it permanent in 1997. The women's 
business centers' unique training and counseling has helped clients 
generate more than $235 million in revenue and create or retain over 
6,500 jobs in 2003. This program clearly has a record of success, 
fostering job growth and providing American small businesses with the 
opportunity to thrive.
  Women entrepreneurs continue to face tremendous challenges--access to 
business assistance, access to capital, and access to Federal 
Government contracting opportunities. The ``glass ceiling'' in 
corporate America that led many women to start a small business has 
been transformed into another obstacle--a ``glass doorway''--between 
women who want to start and grow businesses and the lending and Federal 
contract markets these women entrepreneurs seek to enter. Overcoming 
these obstacles requires that women are provided the business 
assistance tools they need, which we here in Congress can ensure 
through the programs and services established within the Small Business 
Administration.
  Over the past 4 years as chair of the Small Business Committee and 
now as ranking member, I have carefully examined the SBA's programs 
with a particular focus on the agency's initiatives that are intended 
to foster women-owned businesses. I introduced numerous bills in the 
108th and 109th Congress to improve and revitalize these programs.
  In fact, in July 2006, I led the Small Business Committee in 
unanimously reporting out the Small Business Reauthorization and 
Improvements Act, S. 3778. This reauthorization package incorporated a 
bill, the Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act of 2006, S. 
3659, that I, along with Senator Kerry, introduced and which was 
cosponsored by Senator Sununu.
  The issue before us today is whether to renew and make permanent the 
Women's Business Centers Sustainability Grants Program, which 
unfortunately expired in 2003. This amendment is designed to address 
these issues and improve the programs and services that the SBA 
delivers across the Nation for women business owners. The need and the 
impressive record of the women's business centers only supports the 
reasons for making the program permanent. The centers have proven to be 
a great value to the communities they serve, so we must ensure their 
programs and services continue to be available.
  Two years ago, the funding for the women's business center in my home 
State of Maine expired. This center, Coastal Enterprises, has struggled 
since then to find funding necessary to continue providing vital 
assistance to women entrepreneurs across the State of Maine. Coastal 
Enterprises has helped women entrepreneurs succeed for over 10 years, 
and we must ensure the center receives this critical assistance to 
continue its operation.
  The duty rests upon us to foster an environment favorable to economic 
expansion so that each business can travel down their road of success. 
This amendment achieves that goal--and not by establishing costly new 
initiatives but by building on successful established programs within 
the SBA and improving their delivery for the benefit of current and 
future women entrepreneurs.
  My responsibility as ranking member of the committee includes 
ensuring that every woman who owns a small business--or any woman who 
dreams of owning one--has the resources, the support, and the 
opportunities they need to embark on their next great entrepreneurial 
adventure.
  I ask my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 187) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sununu amendment as thus amended is agreed 
to.
  The amendment (No. 112), as amended, was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 127, as Modified, to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send to the desk the modified 
Feingold amendment numbered 127.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr. 
     Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 127, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 100.
       The amendment is as follows:


                     AMENDMENT NO. 127, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To amend the Buy American Act to require each Federal agency 
  to submit reports regarding purchases of items made outside of the 
                 United States, and for other purposes)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ___. REPORTS ON ACQUISITIONS OF ARTICLES, MATERIALS, AND 
                   SUPPLIES MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       Section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the end of 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the head of each 
     Federal agency shall submit to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the amount of the acquisitions 
     made by the agency in that fiscal year of articles, 
     materials, or supplies

[[Page S1046]]

     purchased from entities that manufacture the articles, 
     materials, or supplies outside of the United States.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--The report required by paragraph 
     (1) shall separately include, for the fiscal year covered by 
     such report--
       ``(A) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies that were manufactured outside the United States;
       ``(B) an itemized list of all waivers granted with respect 
     to such articles, materials, or supplies under this Act, and 
     a citation to the treaty, international agreement, or other 
     law under which each waiver was granted;
       ``(C) if any articles, materials, or supplies were acquired 
     from entities that manufacture articles, materials, or 
     supplies outside the United States, the specific exception 
     under this section that was used to purchase such articles, 
     materials, or supplies; and
       ``(D) a summary of--
       ``(i) the total procurement funds expended on articles, 
     materials, and supplies manufactured inside the United 
     States; and
       ``(ii) the total procurement funds expended on articles, 
     materials, and supplies manufactured outside the United 
     States.
       ``(3) Public availability.--The head of each Federal agency 
     submitting a report under paragraph (1) shall make the report 
     publicly available to the maximum extent practicable.
       ``(4) Exception for intelligence community.--This 
     subsection shall not apply to acquisitions made by an agency, 
     or component thereof, that is an element of the intelligence 
     community as specified in, or designated under, section 3(4) 
     of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 127), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, for the benefit of the Members, we have 
today disposed of six amendments. We have 18 other amendments pending. 
The staffs will work over the evening. Some look like we can move along 
early tomorrow. We are planning a full day tomorrow. We have had a 
total of over 90 amendments that have actually been filed. We thank all 
of our colleagues for their cooperation. We are expecting a full day, 
with a number of votes tomorrow. We are looking forward in the near 
future to getting final action on an increase in the minimum wage.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to proceed as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in morning business.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator desires to speak as in morning business, 
I don't think there would be any objection.
  Mr. WARNER. I hope there would not be any objection.
  Madam President, may I suggest the Senator from Idaho be recognized 
and I be recognized following his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I will take 5 minutes or less to speak on 
a matter of importance, in terms of the process we are following as we 
consider the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act.
  The concern I raise is regarding compensation-related tax increases 
that came out of the Senate Committee on Finance as part of this 
package.
  The Small Business and Work Opportunity Act includes $8.3 billion 
worth of business tax reductions that are paid for with offsetting tax 
increases. Two of these tax increases relating to the tax treatment of 
compensation are brandnew proposals that have never been examined by 
either the Committee on Finance or the full Senate. In fact, the 
legislative language was not even available when H.R. 2 was brought to 
the Senate.
  The concern I have about the process is this: Almost half of the 
business tax cuts in the package we are considering are extensions of 
current tax law provisions that Congress has previously passed with 
broad bipartisan support without offsetting tax increases.
  I understand the desire to offset the cost of new tax policies, but I 
am concerned about increasing taxes on individuals and employers to 
offset extensions of current policy. Mandatory spending programs, which 
are the real source of budgetary pressure, are automatically extended 
every year. These automatic extensions are not paid for because they 
represent extensions of current law. The same standard should apply to 
current tax policy.
  We will engage in a debate over the pay-as-you-go budget requirements 
when a pay-go proposal is submitted to the Senate. Until that time, I 
urge my colleagues, we should not raise taxes to offset current tax 
law, particularly if the tax increase proposals have never been vetted. 
Making major changes to the tax law without full examination of the 
policy proposals will lead to unintended consequences and create real 
burdens on many of the employers that this bill seeks to help.
  I will point out a few of the concerns these new proposals do raise 
that, as I said, were not raised in the Committee on Finance as we did 
not have time to review them carefully.
  One of the proposals, the new limits on deferred compensation, limits 
the amount of compensation an employee can save in a nonqualified 
deferred compensation plan or an NQDC plan. I know we are getting into 
acronyms and some of the complications of the code, but these things 
have real consequences in the business of our country. I have several 
significant concerns with this proposal which were not addressed during 
the Committee on Finance consideration of the bill.
  First, the proposal does not target executives. NQDC plans benefit a 
wide range of workers, including nonmanagerial employees. The Committee 
on Finance proposal affects all employees in the plan, not just 
executives. As a result, the proposal would limit the amount that mid-
level workers can set aside for retirement, attacking one of the 
objectives that we in America need to be paying strong attention to, 
the ability of Americans to begin saving assets for retirement.
  Second, the proposal does not target multimillion dollar salaries--
again, one of the justifications for the proposal. It is said that this 
is the million-dollar salary provision. Yet the cap on annual deferrals 
is set at the lesser of $1 million or a 5-year average of past 
compensation. This could have negative consequences on employees at a 
much lower salary level.
  For example, consider a nonmanagerial employee who worked at a 
manufacturing plant for 13 years at an average salary of $60,000 over 
the past 5 years. In the process of downsizing, this employee may be 
offered a severance package that includes 1 year of health benefits 
plus 2 years of severance pay for every year on the job. A severance 
package of this size would add up to $141,000 paid over a number of 
years. The present value of this package--in other words, the value 
stream of the payments in today's dollars--is $125,000. Since the 
employee is bound by a $60,000 cap on deferrals, this severance would 
be taxed and hit with a 20-percent tax penalty. This is hardly the 
result we would want.
  This proposal does nothing to create parity in compensation between 
executives and rank-and-file workers and, in fact, does not limit the 
amount that executives can be paid as, again, is the stated intention 
behind the inclusion of this proposal in the bill. It simply requires 
them to pay taxes on their compensation sooner rather than later. Yet 
it has that unintended consequence that we often speak so much about in 
the Senate of reaching much more broadly than the payment of high 
salaries to the high-paid executives and hitting the mid-level managers 
in the businesses around our country who will pay tax penalties because 
we did not take the time to pay close attention to the kinds of 
provisions contained in the bill.
  All of us have been contacted by those in the country who are 
concerned about this, organizations such as the American Bankers 
Association, the American Benefits Council, the American Council of 
Life Insurers, the Association for Advanced Life Underwriting, the 
ERISA Industry Committee, FEI's Committee on Benefit Finance, FEI's 
Committee on Taxation, the HR Policy Association, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Securities Industry and Financial 
Markets Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, and, of course, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These groups which represent businesses 
of all sizes around the country, which seek to provide benefits and 
support for their employees, are asking us to pay attention to the 
process by which we put proposals of this kind into the Tax Code 
without the kind of due deliberation they deserve.

  Hopefully, during the process of the consideration of this bill, we 
will have

[[Page S1047]]

an opportunity to correct these unintended consequences and make sure 
that the midlevel managers and others who are involved in NQDC plans--
nonqualified deferred compensation plans--do not face these tax 
penalties we never intended them to face.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition to speak in support 
of S.2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, of which I am a cosponsor, 
to increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour by 2009. The 
last time Congress voted to raise the minimum wage was in 1996, raising 
it from $4.25 to $4.75 to eventually $5.15 in 1997.
  History clearly demonstrates that raising the minimum wage has no 
adverse impact on jobs, employment, or inflation. In the 4 years after 
the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its 
strongest growth in over three decades. More than 11 million new jobs 
were added, at the pace of 232,000 per month. We need to ensure that 
hard working Americans that are paid the minimum wage are given an 
increase because there has been no increase for almost 10 years, while 
cost-of-living adjustments have been provided to others.
  In my home State of Pennsylvania, the State minimum wage was 
increased from $5.15 per hour to $6.25 per hour on January 1, 2007. On 
July 1, 2007, the State minimum wage will increase to $7.15 per hour. 
Many States surrounding the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including New 
York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Ohio, have already increased their 
State minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage with a State wage 
rate of $7.93 per hour. With 29 states, including Pennsylvania, passing 
laws to increase their state minimum wage above the Federal wage, it is 
crucial for this body and this Congress to pass legislation to increase 
the Federal wage rate to have consistency across the entire United 
States.
  The official poverty rate in the United States increased from a 26-
year low of 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.6 percent in 2005, including 
12.9 million children. The nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, the 
Economic Policy Institute, EPI, estimates that 11 percent of the work 
force, or about 14.9 million workers, would receive an increase in 
their hourly wages if the Federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 
by 2008. Also, 59 percent of those workers likely to benefit are women 
and 9 percent are single parents. Further, evidence from an analysis of 
the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage 
worker brings home more than half, 54 percent, of his or her family's 
weekly earnings.
  Increasing the Federal wage would enable a working family to afford 
almost 2 more years of childcare, full tuition for a community college 
degree, and many other staples for a healthy standard of living. 
Unfortunately, the current minimum wage fails to meet these standards. 
Congress needs to act. The longer there is inaction, the more behind 
minimum wage earners get in paying expenses just to survive.
  Since taking office in 1981, I have consistently supported increasing 
the Federal minimum wage. I understand the importance of ensuring that 
the minimum wage keeps better pace with inflation. The real value of 
the minimum wage has declined steadily in recent years and it is long 
past due for an increase. America's working families work hard every 
day, sometimes at two or three jobs, just to make ends meet. We need to 
pass this legislation to give these families leverage to compensate for 
the increased costs of living over time.
  The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics defines 
inflation as ``the overall general upward price movement of goods and 
services in an economy.'' The Bureau compiles statistics, called the 
Consumer Price Index, CPI, to measure the rate of inflation on a yearly 
December to December basis. CPI is measured by utilizing prices of a 
``market basket'' of goods and services purchased by an urban family, 
in which a market basket is individual items weighted by how much the 
urban family spent on those same items in a base year period--currently 
1982-1984. By any measure, the current minimum wage does not have the 
same buying power as it did in 1997, the last time the Federal minimum 
wage was increased.
  According to the Department of Labor, the rate of inflation from 1997 
at 1.7 percent has increased at least 2.7 times to 4.7 percent in 2006. 
While the price of items has increased almost three times what they had 
cost in 1997, America's working families who depend on the Federal 
minimum wage have not seen any increase at all in the wages they take 
home.
  The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress has 
done nonpartisan research regarding the Federal minimum wage. They have 
found that those who earned below $7.25 an hour in 2005 were more than 
likely to have been women, 7 out of 11 million, of Hispanic origin, 
young, i.e., age 16-14; over fifty percent, or old, i.e. age 65 and 
above; 3.6 percent, lacking a high school degree, 38.1 percent, working 
part-time, i.e. less than 35 hours a week; 35.1 percent, and not 
represented by a labor union, 16.7 percent. Continuing, the report 
states that the families of these workers were more than likely than 
other families in 2005 to have been poor, receiving welfare, and 
lacking health insurance. As a frame of reference, in the private 
sector in 2005, the average wage of nonmanagement employees was $16.11 
an hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of 
employers.
  While I do support increasing the Federal minimum wage, I am very 
much concerned about the impact on small businesses. In my travels 
throughout Pennsylvania, I have heard from many small business owners 
about the unfairness in our tax laws and the burden placed upon them in 
comparison to large corporations. These complaints have been coupled by 
minimum wage earners who have struggled to make ends meet on just $5.15 
per hour.
  After reviewing the available data, I believe that increasing the 
minimum wage will help those in need and will not adversely affect 
small businesses. A 1998 EPI study did not find any significant job 
loss associated with the 1996-1997 Federal minimum wage increase. On 
the other hand, the low-wage labor market--i.e. lower unemployment 
rates and increased average hourly wages--had performed better than in 
previous years. Small business owners in those states with higher 
minimum wage rates than the Federal minimum wage rate, such as the 
State of Washington at $7.93 per hour, appeared to have prospered. The 
New York Times reported on January 11, 2007 that small business owners 
in Washington's neighboring State of Idaho are hurting because of the 
State's low minimum wage rate of $5.15 per hour. Many residents living 
near Washington seek jobs in the Evergreen State, forcing small 
business owners to offer more than Idaho's minimum wage in order to 
hire new employees.
  Small businesses are recognized as an integral part of a powerful 
economic engine in America. As a critical job creator, they have helped 
build the prosperity that our country has shared. Nationwide, small 
businesses employ 52 percent of the private work force and contribute 
to 47 percent of all sales, spending over $1.4 trillion in annual 
payrolls. We need to strike a balance between the needs of these 
employees and their employers, who will be tasked with paying for any 
increase in the minimum wage.
  To counter balance the increase in the minimum wage, I have supported 
many significant measures to help small businesses in recent years. In 
the 109th Congress, I was a cosponsor of S. 406, the Small Business 
Health Fairness Act and introduced my own bill in the 108th Congress, 
S. 2767, the Small Business Economic Stimulus Act, which would have 
enabled small businesses to join together to form associated health 
plans.
  Further, on May 9, 2006, I voted to invoke cloture (to end debate) on 
S. 1955, the Small Business Health Plans bill. Further, in 2005, I 
supported S.2020, the Tax Relief Act of 2005, which passed the Senate 
64-33. Among other provisions, this bill sought to extend various tax 
relief provisions for businesses including bonus depreciation and 
increased expensing for small business property. I have also 
consistently supported the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, and 
funding for the Small Business Development Center, SBDC, program, which 
operates in partnership with 16 Pennsylvania colleges and universities 
and assists entrepreneurs and

[[Page S1048]]

small businesses through consulting, education and business 
information. This program received $89 million in fiscal year 2006.
  It is my expectation that the small business incentives proposed by 
the Senate Finance Committee will ultimately become law in legislation 
which increases the minimum wage.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a minimum 
wage increase that provides American workers a raise with no strings 
attached. It has been nearly a decade since the minimum wage was last 
increased. We can no longer afford to delay action, and millions of 
hard-working Americans deserve better.
  The Federal minimum wage today is only $5.15 per hour. Someone who 
works at this rate for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year takes home less 
than $11,000 annually far below the poverty line for families.
  Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour would impact 
nearly 13 million Americans, the majority of whom are women, 59 
percent, and people of color, 40 percent. Eighty percent of those 
impacted would be adult workers, and most are full-time employees.
  The consequences of nearly a decade of inaction are clear.
  Almost 40 million Americans live in poverty, 13 million of whom are 
children.
  Increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 would add nearly $4,400 
to a minimum wage worker's annual income, representing, for many 
families, the difference between self-sufficiency or living below the 
poverty line.
  For most Americans, the choice is clear. In the last election, voters 
in six States Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio 
supported initiatives to increase their State minimum wages. In fact, 
29 States, nearly 60 percent, have a minimum wage above the Federal 
level.
  I am proud that my own State of California has one of the highest 
minimum wages in the country, at $7.50 per hour, increasing to $8.00 
per hour next year. Many California cities and counties stipulate that 
workers must be paid a living wage, which in some cases guarantees an 
additional $3 or $4 per hour.
  There are two options before the Senate today. This body can act 
swiftly and stand behind nearly 13 million workers, Or we can delay 
action, by modifying the legislation before us to include $8.3 billion 
in tax breaks for small businesses.
  Packaging the minimum wage bill with these tax cuts is 
disadvantageous to businesses and minimum wage workers. Adding a tax 
package creates procedural hurdles that could significantly delay 
implementation of this wage increase.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes linking these small business tax 
breaks to this legislation because many of the tax provisions are only 
temporary extensions. They do not provide the long-term relief that 
businesses seek.
  Considering the package of small business tax cuts separately would 
facilitate a more robust discussion of how small businesses the primary 
job creators in this country can receive genuine relief from the rising 
costs of operations.
  Many small business owners would suffer no adverse impact if the 
minimum wage were increased. A recent Gallup Poll in the Sacramento 
Business Journal showed that 86 percent of small business owners 
surveyed do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage would harm 
their businesses.
  Nearly 75 percent of small business owners thought that a 10 percent 
minimum wage increase would have no impact on their businesses at all. 
More than half of those polled thought the minimum wage should actually 
be increased.
  The evidence shows that increasing the minimum wage does not 
adversely affect the economy. In fact, in Los Angeles and San 
Francisco, raising wages added stability to many businesses and the 
local economy.
  In San Francisco, turnover for home-care workers fell by 57 percent 
after the city implemented its living wage policies.
  The average job tenure of workers in fast food restaurants increased 
by 3.5 months.
  In Los Angeles, businesses affected by a living wage ordinance had 
one-third less turnover among low wage earners, and absenteeism 
declined.
  Higher wages improve worker loyalty and increase employee retention, 
while decreasing employee hiring and training costs.
  Let me be clear: I support many of the tax cuts for small businesses. 
I think they should be considered, with the proper offsets, as part of 
a separate revenue-neutral tax bill. But they should not be included in 
this must-pass minimum wage bill.
  Ensuring that all American workers receive fair pay for a hard day's 
work should not be a partisan issue. The House overwhelmingly passed 
this legislation by a vote of 315 to 116, with more than 80 Republicans 
crossing party lines to support this cause.
  Congress has increased the minimum wage nine times since the 
enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. Only once, in 1996, was a minimum wage 
increase paired with tax cuts.
  The purchasing power of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 
1955. The cost of living is up 26 percent since the last minimum wage 
increase in 1997.
  It is unfair to punish hard working people and make them wait for an 
increase. We must not delay. We must not bog down this bill with 
procedural tactics.
  American workers deserve better. I urge my colleagues to do what is 
fair and just: Pass a clean minimum wage bill. Let's provide immediate 
relief to those who need it most.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.

                          ____________________