[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 17 (Monday, January 29, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1255-S1256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period for the
transaction of morning business until 3:30 p.m. today. Senator Dorgan
will be recognized for up to 45 minutes and Senator Specter for up to
30 minutes. We will resume H.R. 2 at 3:30 p.m. for debate only until
5:30 p.m. During this time, Senator Sessions will be recognized for an
hour at 4 p.m. As a reminder to Members, cloture has been filed on the
substitute amendment to H.R. 2. and the bill itself. Therefore, Members
have until 3 p.m. today to file any additional first-degree amendments.
Currently, there are 23 amendments pending. I am told that the vast
majority of these amendments, after initial review by the
Parliamentarians, will be ruled not germane or arguably not germane.
The cloture vote on the substitute amendment will occur prior to the
conference luncheons tomorrow at 12 noon.
Mr. President, if I may say a few words in addition, today we are
going to, hopefully, have a debate that will be meaningful to the
American people on minimum wage. This debate will be completed tomorrow
in many respects, with a cloture vote on the substitute occurring
tomorrow. The other debate we may get to this week is that dealing with
Iraq. Both are issues past Congresses have neglected and both are areas
where Democrats and Republicans must work together to move America
forward.
Minimum Wage
It has been 10 years since the minimum wage was last raised. During
that period of time, the cost of food has risen 23 percent, the cost of
health care almost 45 percent, the cost of housing about 30 percent,
the cost of gas 135 percent, and that is as of today. Of course, as we
know, in the past, it has been much more than that. Congressional pay
has risen during that period of time by $30,000 per year per Member of
Congress. But the minimum wage has stayed the same, $5.15.
Today, a full-time minimum wage worker earns $10,700 a year, working
40 hours a week. That is $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a
family of three. This is wrong. It doesn't speak well of our country.
At its heart, this debate is about fairness.
In America, we believe--I think we should believe--a person working
full time should be able to live a life that is not in poverty. A
mother, a father who works hard and plays by the rules should be able
to feed, clothe, and raise their children. Isn't it better that we have
people who are engaged in work rather than welfare? The answer is yes.
Mr. President, $7.25 might not seem like a lot of money in
Washington, but it would mean almost $4,500 more a year for the
Nation's working poor. That is enough money for a family of 3 to buy 15
months of groceries, 19 months for their utility bills, 8 months of
rent, 2 years of health care, 20 months of childcare, and even 30
months of college tuition at some schools.
Tomorrow we will have a cloture vote on the minimum wage, and I sure
hope this will be a good bipartisan vote on cloture, so we can complete
this legislation quickly.
Senators have had time to offer amendments. As I said Friday, when is
enough enough? After 10 years, it is
[[Page S1256]]
time to stop talking about this issue and finally give
working Americans an overdue raise.
Iraq
When the Senate completes its work on the minimum wage--whether it is
tomorrow, the next day, next day, the next day or next week--we are
going to move to Iraq, and that is a debate regarding the proposed plan
by the President to escalate the conflict. We owe it to our troops who
serve bravely to have a real debate about the way forward in that war.
We are approaching 3,100 dead American soldiers. I was watching the
Lehrer ``NewsHour.'' They show, in silence, pictures of the soldiers
who have died in Iraq. They do it every few days. I watched this Friday
and was struck by the number of women in this most recent reporting of
deaths who are pictured there, who have been killed. They were not
combat troops. They were doing activities important to the cause, such
as driving vehicles. It is hard to determine what is combat and what is
not combat. A helicopter went down and women were in that helicopter. A
helicopter went down yesterday. I don't know who was in it, but we know
two Americans were killed. So we have to have a debate about the way
forward in the war in Iraq.
In Washington, we hear a lot of rhetoric about how the upcoming
congressional debate emboldens our enemies. To quote a headline that
appeared in a lot of newspapers, this particular one was the Las Vegas
Sun newspaper, it said: Those who peddle such deceitful, political
talking points ``need a lesson in civics.''
As Mr. Warner, the gentleman Senator from Virginia, has said in this
debate, Senators are ``trying to exercise the fundamental
responsibilities of our democracy.''
Critics of the war also need a lesson in history. If history has
taught us anything, it is that our country is strongest when all three
branches of Government function. Our country is strongest when this
legislative branch is more than a rubberstamp. And, finally, our
country is strongest when we have real, meaningful debate on issues of
consequence on behalf of the American people.
There is no issue greater in consequence than what is going on in
Iraq. To suggest that the former chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, a former Secretary of the Navy, a former marine, Senator
John Warner, or highly decorated Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel, who on
the battlefields of Vietnam saved his own brother's life, would take
any action to undermine our troops and embolden the enemy--of course
not--to suggest such is beneath any administration official or Member
of Congress, even though they both tried it. I think they should
reexamine what they have said. It is dangerous rhetoric, motivated more
by politics than events in Iraq.
These two men are examples of this not emboldening the enemy but our
doing, as the legislative branch of Government, what we are obligated
to do: to talk about this conflict in Iraq.
We are in a hole in Iraq. Escalating the war is deepening that hole.
We need to find a way out of that hole. Our troops, most of all, need
our help. They need a policy that is worthy of their heroic sacrifices.
They don't need hollow speeches or inflammatory rhetoric. They don't
need a rubberstamp. They need someone to ask the tough questions. They
need a legislative branch that will finally exercise its constitutional
responsibilities.
I, for one, am glad we have finally arrived at this point where
Congress is exercising its power. We arrived here because the American
people demanded we exercise our power.
In his State of the Union Address, the President asked Members of
Congress to give escalation a chance. But the truth is, escalation is
the same failed President Bush policy that has already run out of
chances. The President has escalated the war before, only to see the
same results: increasing chaos, innumerable costs, and a civil war that
is spinning out of control.
Is there a war in Iraq that is civil in nature? Of course. A
marketplace where people came to buy pets, to sell pets was blown to
smithereens, snakes crawling away from their cages. Children taking
tests were hit with a mortar round over the weekend. And 600 insurgents
were gathered in an orchard where a battle that took 15 hours ensued
over the weekend. Is there a civil war? Of course, there is a civil
war. Is there chaos in Iraq? Of course, there is chaos in Iraq.
The President knows how the American people feel. Generals Abizaid
and Casey, when asked whether this escalation would be a good idea,
told the President ``no.'' They were relieved of duty. Prime Minister
Maliki, speaking face to face with the President, said: Mr. President,
get American troops out of Baghdad. That is what the democratically
elected Prime Minister of Iraq told the President of the United States.
The Iraq Study Group has so told the President. And now we are going to
have a bipartisan vote that will tell the President the same.
There is no military solution in Iraq; there are only political
solutions in Iraq. With the vote, which will eventually come, we will
give the President another chance to listen, listen to the generals,
listen to the Iraq Study Group, listen to the American people, and
listen to a bipartisan Congress.
The stunning part of this is the people of Iraq don't want us there.
Polls show that 70 percent of the Iraqis believe Iraq would be better
off if we were out of there. So it is another chance to listen and
change course. That is what we hope will be the outcome of our debate.
That will be the right result for the Nation, for our strategic
interests, and for the troops.
We will work with my distinguished friend, the Republican leader, to
try to have something that is more understandable. The way things now
stand, if cloture is invoked tomorrow, this matter can be played out,
as I understand the procedures here, until about 1 o'clock Friday
morning and, if necessary, we will do that. But hopefully we can agree
on a way to proceed through this without those many votes and arrive at
a point where we can come to some agreement as to how we should proceed
in a reasonable, logical way, so everyone has their opportunity to
express views on Iraq. We have a number of competing legislative
matters we can vote on. It would seem to me very likely it will take 60
votes to pass anything, but at least if we set up a responsible way to
go forward, I think it would be more meaningful to the body and to the
American people.
I know my friend, the Republican leader, will work with me. We will
try to do the best we can for the body itself; otherwise, we will work
through the rules of the Senate, which will get us there but maybe not
as quickly and as conveniently.
____________________