[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2938-2942]
[From the U.S. 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 legislative 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to speak on another matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the verdict is in on the President's plan to 
send more American troops into Iraq: 68 percent of the American people 
are opposed to it; 62 percent of Active-Duty military officers are 
opposed to it. Top military leaders have voiced skepticism about 
whether an increase in troops will succeed in suppressing the sectarian 
violence that has consumed Iraq. The evidence is in. The voice of the 
people, the American people--voix populaire--is clear. It is time to 
turn around. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have no 
intention of heeding that call from the people.
  Last week, the Vice President talked about the ``enormous successes'' 
that have been accomplished in Iraq. Enormous successes? I ask, 
enormous successes? The Vice President's definition of ``enormous 
success'' is, apparently, different from mine.
  The Vice President said that talk of failures and blunders in Iraq 
was just hogwash--his word, ``hogwash''--and the Vice President 
asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to Iraq, ``it 
won't stop us.'' Hear me now. Hear me. This is the Vice President 
talking. He asserted that whatever Congress votes on in relation to 
Iraq, ``it won't stop us.''
  Now, listen to me, you people out there in the hills, in the valleys, 
across the mountain ranges, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that is a 
slap in the face to you. Our constituents voted for change in the last 
election. They asked their elected representatives--us--to chart a new 
course in Iraq. This administration continues to disregard the will of 
the American people, it continues to disregard the people of the 
Nation, the authority of the Constitution. The administration believes 
it can continue to ignore the message that is coming--yes--from the 
American people, loudly and clearly: Bring our sons and daughters home.

[[Page 2939]]

  That is why the bipartisan resolutions we will be debating are so 
important. That is why they are so important. We have a duty as the 
elected representatives of the people of the United States to be their 
voices and to speak the truth. And the truth is that sending more 
American troops into Iraq would be a continuation of the mistakes that 
brought us there in the first place. The truth is that many of us in 
both parties deeply, deeply disagree with the President's decision to 
increase our commitment in Iraq rather than to decrease it. The truth 
is that the American people are fed up with having our--our--soldiers 
caught in the crossfire of a civil war.
  It is important to send that message from the people to the President 
of the United States. But it is not enough. The American people are 
asking us to send a message, but they are also asking us for answers. 
What is our strategy? What is our strategy in Iraq? I am not a Johnny-
come-lately on this question. I was against sending American troops 
into Iraq in the first place. I said so, and I voted so.
  So what is our strategy in Iraq? Why are we there? When can our sons 
and daughters and grandchildren come home? When can our sons and 
daughters come home? This President has had almost 4 years to 
articulate answers to those questions. Unfortunately, he has failed at 
every opportunity. And so it falls to us--us, you Senators and me, and 
Members of the other body--to find a way forward out of the mess he has 
created. That is why I will be introducing, within the coming days, a 
resolution that is a new approach to the war, a resolution that is 
fully supportive of our troops, while laying out clear--clear; as clear 
as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky--benchmarks for concluding U.S. 
military engagement in Iraq.
  This administration has claimed that debating the President's plan 
will undermine the troops. Can you believe that? Debating--debating--
debating the President's plan will undermine the troops? Hogwash--h-o-
g-w-a-s-h--hogwash. Only 38 percent of the Active-Duty U.S. military 
forces support sending more troops into Iraq. To imply that the 
American people and the American troops are somehow incapable of 
hearing and participating in debate about this war is utterly 
ridiculous--ridiculous--hogwash.
  War--hear me now--war and the escalation of war is not something to 
be decided in some backroom corridor far from the madding crowd, far 
from the light of day. We have a duty--yes, a duty--and a 
responsibility to deliberate, to discuss, and to offer advice. That is 
the way democracy works, and that is the system established by our 
Founding Fathers. You better believe it.
  Some have claimed that by putting forward these resolutions, we are 
only offering criticism--well, what is wrong with that in the 
beginning--and, they say, not alternatives. But criticism is only the 
first step. That is all right. Criticism is only the first step. It is 
critical to send a consensus message to this President that he is 
moving us in the wrong direction. The next step is to show the 
President the right direction. That is why my resolution is so 
important and why we should be allowed to debate it and to vote on it 
quickly. We must show the President the way forward. We must send a 
light in a binding resolution that cannot be ignored.
  The American people want a fundamental change in the administration's 
policies toward Iraq. The American people elected Congress--you, you, 
you, and me--to make those changes. We must demonstrate that the 
Congress can take and is prepared to take action to compel the 
President to create a strategy that is not simply more of the same.
  The resolution I will be introducing will do exactly that. You may 
not agree with it. The resolution will do exactly that. This resolution 
reflects the will of the American people that the war in Iraq must be 
brought to a close in a responsible way. It will establish provisions 
to bring to a close the U.S. military engagement in Iraq based not upon 
dates but based upon conditions.
  It will restore to Congress--Congress; that is us, the people's 
elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. 
Senate--it will restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power 
by adding conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of 
force resolution. I was against that resolution. I spoke against it. I 
voted against it. I was against it. I am against it. I was right. I am 
right. And there are others who voted with me--yes, the people's voice.
  Let me say that again. It will restore to Congress--the House and 
Senate of the United States--it will restore to Congress its 
constitutional war-making power. Do you believe me? I have it right 
here. I hold in my hand a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It will 
restore to Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding 
conditions that would terminate the original 2002 use of force 
resolution. Hallelujah. Amen. I was against that to start with. Not 
everybody agreed with me, which was their right. But this would 
restore--where it was and ought to have been in the first place--to 
Congress its constitutional war-making power by adding conditions that 
would terminate the original 2002 use of force resolution. I was 
against it. But that resolution was enacted, and it is still the law of 
the land. It is still the law of the land and will be the law of the 
land unless and until the Congress acts to terminate it.
  The conditions can be summarized as follows: We have achieved our 
objective. We are no longer needed--or we are no longer wanted in Iraq. 
These are not irresponsible conditions that would prolong our 
involvement in Iraq, nor do they require a chaotic or dangerous 
withdrawal of our troops. These are reasonable conditions that, through 
the exercise of the article I, section 8 powers granted to the 
Congress, set limits on the Iraq war resolution, which currently has no 
sunset provision. Hear me. It has no sunset provision. It goes on and 
on and on--like Tennyson's brook--forever, on and on and on. Do we want 
that? That war resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity. 
Do you know what that means? Till Kingdom comes; in perpetuity, from 
now on, as far as the human eye can see and beyond that. That war 
resolution will continue to be in effect in perpetuity if the Congress 
does not act. And if Congress does not act, that is an abdication of 
the responsibility of the Congress--that is an abdication of the 
responsibility of the Congress--to be a steward, a good steward, of its 
constitutional power to declare war.
  Additionally, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded, a clear 
message must be sent to the Iraqi Government that the U.S. commitment 
to the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The Byrd resolution will point 
the way toward concluding that commitment.
  No Senator must set aside his or her views of the war in order to 
support the Byrd resolution. Those who support a rapid redeployment of 
our troops must realize that the Congress must first reassert the 
powers vested in this body by article I of the Constitution. Those who 
have supported the war but are now calling for benchmarks for progress 
by the Iraqi Government should understand that there can be no clearer 
call for benchmarks for progress than by writing into the law of the 
land the conditions under which our presence in Iraq will end.
  My approach is one that I believe should have wide bipartisan 
support. At the appropriate time, I will make the necessary motions to 
place my resolution, the Byrd resolution, directly onto the calendar, 
and I urge that the Senate schedule a debate on this proposal soon 
after this body completes action on the nonbinding resolutions. 
Although the President believes he can act without the support of the 
people, the Congress must not submit to such hubris. The work of the 
Congress must be the work of the people, and there is no more important 
issue--hear me, there is no more important issue--before our country 
today than finding a way out of the quagmire in Iraq.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 2940]]


  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. Madam President, I support the bipartisan compromise 
legislation on Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. It is 
a stunning repudiation of the President's misguided strategy in Iraq, 
and it will put the Senate squarely on record in opposition to the 
surge. It is a clarion call for change and a vote of no confidence in 
the President's failed policy.
  It was wrong for the President to take the country to war when we 
did, the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. It is 
wrong to compound that mistake now by sending tens of thousands of 
additional American troops into the middle of a civil war now taking 
place.
  The American people oppose this escalation. Many generals oppose it. 
A bipartisan majority of Congress opposes it as well. I especially 
commend our colleague, Senator Warner, for his extraordinary service to 
the Nation and making this compromise possible.
  Could our message to the White House be any louder or clearer? I 
intend, however, to press for binding action that will prevent the 
surge, unless the President changes course. If he doesn't, I will seek 
a vote at the first appropriate opportunity. It is wrong for the 
President to escalate this war and send more American soldiers into the 
cauldron of civil war.
  We are very hopeful that through the course of the afternoon we are 
going to be finally able to get a vote on the increase in the minimum 
wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. This is the 9th day we have been on 
this particular legislation. We have had over $240 billion worth of 
increased tax preferences that have been suggested and recommended--
always on the increase on the minimum wage.
  This is not a very complex issue. We have not raised the minimum wage 
in over 10 years. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone 
down and down, and even with the increase now to $7.25 an hour, it will 
only be restored to the purchasing power it had 10 years ago.
  This is an issue of fairness. It is about people who work and work 
hard. It is about men and women of dignity who want to do a good job 
and also want to provide for their children. So I am very hopeful we 
will have a chance this afternoon to move ahead and vote. We, on this 
side, have been prepared to vote on that increase from the first day. 
The House of Representatives only took 4 hours. The Democrats were 
joined by 80 Republicans to increase the minimum wage.
  But over here, we have had 9 days of debate on the minimum wage, with 
a host of different amendments and still, outside of cloture, we would 
have 96 amendments that would have been offered by our friends on that 
side.
  I saw yesterday that the President of the United States went to Wall 
Street and made a speech about how good everything was in terms of the 
American economy. I noticed that. I read through the speech. He was 
very robustly cheered by Wall Street during his recitation of some of 
the facts of what has been happening in the American economy. But 
although the economy has worked very well for Wall Street--I don't know 
of anybody who is doubting that--it is a different situation on Main 
Street. We have seen and heard, during the course of this debate, from 
many of our colleagues who related many of the stories they witnessed 
firsthand as they campaigned in their States and as they supported the 
initiatives that took place in some six States across the country. 
Rather than jobs that were going to lift you out of poverty, they are 
ending up being jobs that keep you in poverty. A minimum wage job was 
never meant to keep you in poverty. That is what it is doing today.
  To review what our situation is, looking at the growth of poverty in 
the United States, these are some of the figures that were not included 
in the President's speech yesterday. Between 2000 and 2005, 5.4 million 
more Americans are in poverty in this Bush economy. This is in the last 
5 years, from 2000 to 2005. What is more distressing is the number of 
children who are now living in poverty. This is the other side of the 
economic coin. This is not Wall Street; this is what is happening in 
communities all across our country. These are census figures, as of 
August 2006. We have 1.3 million more children who are living in 
poverty. We have not seen a reduction in the number of children in 
poverty; we have seen an increase in the number of children in poverty. 
This has followed quite a series of economic policies that have brought 
us to where we are at the present time. We saw that between 1947 and 
1973--to put this administration's economic policies in some 
perspective because I think it is useful to try to find out exactly 
what it is and to understand it better. Rather than taking one speech 
at a time, why don't we look at what has been happening to the economy 
over the period of recent years.
  This chart reflects statistics from 1947 to 1973, over a 25-year 
period, and these indicators are the five different quintiles of income 
for the American economy, with the lowest at 20 percent. What we are 
seeing is that all of the different economic groups rose and moved 
together. Actually, the ones that rose the most were those at the 
lowest part of the economic ladder. But what this chart is saying is 
that the economy of the United States of America was working for 
everyone during this 25-year period. Everyone. Everyone across the 
board was benefiting from the expanding economy.
  If we look at 1973 to 2000, we begin to see the growth of these great 
disparities. This is from the Economic Policy Institute, and these are 
figures from 1973 to 2000. It was interesting that in the President's 
speech he talked about where we were 25 years ago. Of course, 25 years 
ago is when President Reagan was President, and this is what we find, 
which is right in the middle of that period and when this major 
disparity started to grow. This would be, obviously, starting in 1980, 
and this is 1973 to 2000.
  The previous chart showed them all about even, with the lowest 
growing the fastest. Now we are seeing the flow line and the top moving 
along the fastest. And if we break this out even further, between 1973 
and 2000, we find this growth disparity starting under the Republicans. 
It is 1980. The President made the reference to 25 years ago, and that 
is when the growth of this disparity started, and that is due to 
economic policies. Economic policies. You just can't get away from it.
  If we look from 2000 to 2004, this chart reflects what has happened. 
Take the line that goes right across, and we find out that low-income 
Americans are actually losing income and falling the fastest. This is a 
Census Bureau historical income table. These are the governmental 
figures. So this isn't a speech, these are governmental figures. It 
shows this extraordinary growth in these disparities, and the people 
who have suffered the most have been children and also those at the 
lower end of the economic ladder, who are the minimum wage workers. And 
that is what we are trying to change on the floor of the Senate, to 
give them a break and give them a raise to $7.25.
  We can see what has happened as a result of these economic policies 
of the recent past. These are the UNICEF child poverty figures, and we 
see across the industrial world that the United States has the highest 
child poverty rate, the highest child poverty rate of any industrial 
country in the world. So we have this idea on Wall Street that we can 
say everything is hunky-dory and yet be a nation where we have the 
highest child poverty rate in the world. And Lord only knows that this 
weekend probably every person in this Chamber will be making a speech 
about how children are our future and we have to invest in them, all of 
which is absolutely true, but we have been failing in our 
responsibility to look after what has been happening to the children in 
our country.
  One might say: Well, this is all very interesting, but what has the 
minimum wage got to do with any of this, Senator? It is interesting, 
but the increase in the minimum wage doesn't solve

[[Page 2941]]

these issues. And I agree with the President that we have to do more in 
terms of education. We have to do more in terms of training and in 
health and in nutrition for these children. There is a great deal more 
we have to do for children. It all starts, obviously, in the home, but 
schools are next, and then communities. We all have to do a great deal 
more, but these are rather startling indictments.
  Look at where the poverty rate is in the United States. In States 
that have a high minimum wage, they have lower poverty rates. This is 
directly related to the subject matter here.
  We have talked generally about economic trends. We have talked about 
the growth in poverty and the growth in child poverty. So one might 
ask: What can we do about it? Well, one major step forward we can take 
is doing something about the minimum wage. Let's prove it.
  Look at this chart. These are States with higher minimum wages. They 
are the States that have voted for an increase in the minimum wage over 
the Federal minimum wage. Again, these are the Census Bureau's figures. 
The national poverty rate we see is the red line, and the States that 
have a higher minimum wage than the national average have less child 
poverty. Less child poverty.
  This chart reflects poverty rates generally, with the next chart 
reflecting lower child poverty rates. Here is the increase in the 
minimum wage, and it shows where child poverty is. The other chart 
showed families living in poverty. This is what happens in States with 
a higher minimum wage. Again, these are all Census Bureau figures.
  So we can do something about child poverty by increasing the minimum 
wage. And there are many other things we can do, such as increase the 
earned-income tax credit, support the CHIP, Medicaid expansion, and 
other types of outreach programs. But one thing we know we can do, and 
what we have before the Senate this afternoon, is the issue of whether 
we are going to make progress in reducing child poverty. That is the 
issue. That is one of the significant outcomes of the vote this 
afternoon.
  We are seeing at the present time, according to the USDA, that we 
have 12.4 million children who are hungry under the Bush economy. This 
particular line is left out of the speeches on Wall Street. We have 
12.4 million children who are going hungry every single day according 
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But here we see what happens 
with these 6.4 million children who will benefit from this increase in 
the minimum wage.
  This is the spinoff from the increase in the minimum wage. We are 
going to get better attendance in our schools, better concentration, 
and better performance. We have seen that time and time again. We are 
going to get higher test scores and higher graduation rates; children 
with stronger immune systems, better health, fewer expensive hospital 
visits, and fewer run-ins with the juvenile justice system.
  We should go back and look at the Perry preschool programs. The 
studies reflect that when we make these investments in children that we 
will see every one of these kinds of indicators come out in a positive 
way. And increasing the minimum wage, as I mentioned, will have an 
impact on 6.4 million children.
  I will make just one final point, Madam President. We have 50,000 
spouses of our military who are working today, 50,000 of them and their 
husbands, primarily husbands but also wives, who are serving in the 
Armed Forces of the United States of America, and many of them are in 
Iraq or Afghanistan or served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are 
earning $5.15 or slightly more an hour today. So when we ask what can 
we do to indicate to our men and women in uniform that we have some 
respect for their families, well, we have important responsibilities to 
their families. We can't expect we are going to have top-notch fighting 
personnel if they are worried about the economic condition of their 
families. Any military leader will tell you that.
  So we have a responsibility to them because they are part of our 
national security, but we have a responsibility to them also if we are 
interested in having the most efficient kind of fighting force. Yet we 
have 50,000 members whose families are out there earning $5.15 or 
slightly more an hour. That can change. That will change. We can 
increase the benefits that reach these families.
  Hopefully, we have had a good opportunity to talk about these issues. 
At earlier times in the debate we had questions about, well, what is 
going to be the impact on small business. We showed the charts where 
they had increased the minimum wage in some States and, actually, the 
numbers of small businesses and the expansion of small business and the 
profitability of small business had all been enhanced.
  We had the question: Well, if we increase the minimum wage, will 
there be an increasing loss of employment? We demonstrated here the 
best answer to that is what has happened in the past. At other times, 
historically, when we saw this kind of increase in the minimum wage, we 
actually saw the unemployment figures continue to strip downward and 
the employment figures continued to drift upward. Those are the 
statistics. We put them out here and we haven't been challenged on any 
of these figures.
  We also hear, although not a great deal during the course of this 
particular debate but in other debates, that this action will be 
inflationary. So we put the chart up that showed if we provide an 
increase in the minimum wage, in terms of the payroll, that the 
increase is just one-fifth of 1 percent of total payroll in this 
country. So the idea that it is going to add to inflation is basically 
misleading. Of course, it doesn't compare to the kinds of increases we 
have seen in a lot of these corporate salaries. I wish we had heard 
complaints about some of that as we were talking about the pressures of 
increased payout.
  The arguments in favor of the increase are compelling, they are 
overwhelming, and, hopefully, we are going to have an opportunity this 
afternoon to finally get, after 10 years, an increase in the minimum 
wage. We have been standing virtually in the same place for 10 years 
trying to get an increase. We had 16 days of debate on the increase in 
the minimum wage outside of the last 9 days. So that is 25 days of 
discussion on the floor of the Senate as to whether we are going to 
increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over, basically, 
a 2-year period. It has taken us all that time to get the Senate of the 
United States to hopefully vote positively on that proposal, but I am 
very hopeful that will be the case later in the afternoon.
  Madam 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. ALLARD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allard and Mr. Salazar pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 472 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                Congratulating Miss America Contestants

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, later today the Senate will approve a 
resolution commending Ms. Lauren Nelson, Miss Oklahoma, as having been 
named Miss America in the contest on Monday night. I certainly join all 
Members of the Senate in congratulating her.
  I also wish to acknowledge my pride in Amanda Kozak, who finished as 
second runner-up as Miss Georgia. She is an equally beautiful and 
talented young lady.
  I think it is appropriate that we memorialize on the floor of the 
Senate for the record the fact that one of our own was also in that 
contest on Monday

[[Page 2942]]

night. I am very proud of Miss Kate Michael, Miss District of Columbia, 
who has worked in my office for the past 3 years. She is a talented, 
insightful young woman, dedicated to the betterment of mankind and 
committed to her country. She is a gifted professional dancer who has 
danced off-Broadway. She is a beautiful person on the outside, and she 
is equally beautiful on the inside. She is very bright. She graduated 
magna cum laude from the University of Georgia, and now, while pursuing 
the Miss America contest, working every day in the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee with me, at night she goes to Johns 
Hopkins to pursue a master's degree in government.
  Truly, sometimes the media takes those sensational things that happen 
to young people that are always disappointing and elevates them to 
front-page news. Yet fine young women such as the ones we recognize in 
this resolution rarely ever get a comment once the crown is placed on 
their head. But I am very proud today to say how proud I am of Miss 
Kate Michael, Miss District of Columbia, my employee and an employee of 
this Senate, who performed masterfully and competed masterfully in the 
Miss America contest and is the winner of a crown with me every day of 
the year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________