Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Let me just say I am anticipating somewhere around 12 or 15 minutes.

Mr. ALLARD. In October 2002, this body saw fit to authorize, by a large majority, the use of force against Iraq. Specifically the resolution authorizes the President: to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. I remind my colleagues that we did so because of two important reasons--the same two reasons offered by the President to the American public. First, Saddam Hussein was in breach of more than a dozen United Nations Security Council resolutions. He refused to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors even after a decade of sanctions, and rejected proposal after proposal to verify that he did not have such weapons. Second, after September 11, it was clear that America could not afford to allow imminent threats to our Nation go unopposed. At the time, Iraq represented a dangerous crossroad between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In the context of Saddam's hostile intentions, it was a nexus that we could not ignore. When critics attempt to cover up their support for the use of force against Iraq, they damage U.S. credibility overseas and send mixed messages to our servicemembers. Even more dangerously, they encourage an enemy who believes America will give up when the fighting gets tough. Of course, there is no doubt that the strategic imperatives in Iraq have changed since 2002. I will readily admit that this fight is one that we fully recognize. But that in no way diminishes the importance of our mission there now. We have a vital national interest to remain in Iraq and help maintain a secure and stable nation. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central in their war against the civilized world. They are committed to fighting there and will not stop unless we defeat them. If we have to fight, it is preferable to fight on their own soil. They have also made it clear that they will not stop with Iraq. They will strike Iraq's neighbors as they did in Jordan and Lebanon. They will strike Europe as they did in the Madrid bombings. And, they will not hesitate to strike America again as they did on September 11. And yet now, in this body, we are debating another resolution, but one that does not hold any legal weight; a resolution that would tie the hands of our soldiers in the field by limiting their options, lower their morale, and harm their efforts in Iraq. I am convinced that a long-term stable Iraq is in the best interest of our national security, and as I have said many times before, the price of failure in Iraq is too great to walk away now. We should not forfeit our progress in Iraq to meet arbitrary deadlines whether they are in the short or in the long term. We should not think about giving up when our men and women in uniform who have achieved so much. Such defeatism encourages the terrorists, undermines our efforts to persuade other nations to join us, and opens the door to attacks here at home. We must stand firm. We must stand strong. Thus, I support the President's plan to move forward in trying to secure Baghdad. One of the keys to success in Iraq, I believe, is obtaining a sincere commitment from the Iraqi Prime Minister to get the Iraqi government to play a much stronger role in the destiny of Iraq. President Bush is confident that we now have that commitment and I think that this will have a major impact on our new efforts to bring stability to Baghdad. I am supportive of this new strategy because it contains a much stronger commitment from Iraqis, in terms of their share of force strength and their financial share of the costs of the war, and includes new thresholds for the Iraqis to meet. To date, the Iraqis have become too reliant on U.S. troops and U.S. dollars. This plan shows a new commitment from the Iraqis to step up to the plate and fight for their country's future. I am optimistic that the President's shift in direction was needed, and may have already resulted in two positive results: No. 1, Iraq's prime minister dropped his protection of an anti- American cleric's Shiite militia after U.S. intelligence convinced him the group was infiltrated by death squads; and No. 2, recently, U.S. forces arrested the top aide to radical cleric al-Sadr in a raid. I think this signals that the important change in our strategy shows hope for success and that Iraq is ready to come forward with a renewed commitment to solving its problems. Mr. President, I enter in the Record the following newspaper articles describing these accounts. [From the Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2007] Key Aide to Sadr Arrested in Baghdad--Iraqi-Led Operation Part of Broader Push (By Ernesto Londono) U.S.-backed Iraqi forces arrested a top aide to anti- American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in eastern Baghdad on Friday, amid growing signs of stepped-up efforts to quell Sadr and his supporters. U.S. military officials said in November that Sadr's Mahdi Army militia represents the greatest threat to Iraq's security. U.S. and Iraqi forces are preparing a renewed effort to pacify Baghdad, including the deployment of additional U.S. troops. Abdul Hadi al-Daraji, Sadr's media director in Baghdad, was arrested at his house in the neighborhood of Baladiyat, near the Mahdi Army stronghold of Sadr City, shortly after midnight, said Sadr spokesman Abdul Razak al-Nadawi. The spokesman said a guard was killed during the operation. At least two other aides were taken into custody, according to a statement released by the U.S. military. The statement did not identify Daraji by name, but said the main suspect was involved in the assassination of numerous members of Iraq's security forces and is ``affiliated with illegal armed group cells targeting Iraqi civilians for sectarian attacks.'' The military said the arrest was the result of an ``Iraqi-led'' operation. Nadawi said ``the occupation forces are provoking Sadr . . . by these daily operations or every-other-day operations.'' The spokesman added that the cleric's followers ``are the only ones demanding and putting a timetable for the occupation withdrawal.'' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has been pressured by the Bush administration to bring the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias under control, was not forewarned about the arrest, said Ali Dabbagh, a spokesman for Maliki. Dabbagh said the prime minister was not notified about every impending high-profile arrest. ``No one is untouchable for the security forces,'' Dabbagh said. ``At the same time, no one was interested to go into a fight with the Sadr movement.'' Sadr, whose supporters hold 30 seats in parliament, is a key supporter of Maliki, who is a Shiite, but the cleric is also widely seen as an instigator of the country's sectarian violence. Neither Dabbagh nor the U.S. military said whether Daraji had been charged with a crime. ``Definitely, if he's not charged, he will be released in a respectful way,'' Dabbagh said. Sadr said in an interview with an Italian newspaper published Friday that a crackdown had begun and that 400 of his men had been arrested, according to the Associated Press. Maliki told reporters this week that 430 Mahdi Army members had been arrested in recent days, but Nadawi said Thursday that the arrests stretched back to August 2004. In the interview, Sadr said his militiamen would not fight back during the Muslim holy month of Muharram, which started Friday for Sunnis and begins Saturday for Shiites, saying it was against the faith to kill at that time. ``Let them kill us. For a true believer there is no better moment than this to die: Heaven is ensured,'' he was quoted as saying. ``After Muharram, we'll see.'' Also on Friday, the U.S. military reported the death of an American soldier killed Thursday by an improvised explosive device. The soldier, who was not identified pending notification of relatives, was traveling in a convoy conducting an escort mission in a neighborhood in northwest Baghdad when the blast occurred. Three other soldiers were injured.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the resolution I am honored to submit today with my colleague, Senator Feinstein, is to commemorate today, February 6, 2007--what would be Ronald Reagan's 96th birthday--as Ronald Reagan Day. President Ronald Wilson Reagan, a man of humble background, worked throughout his life serving freedom and advancing the public good, having been employed as an entertainer, union leader, corporate spokesman, Governor of California and President of the United States. In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was inaugurated President, he inherited a disillusioned Nation shackled by rampant inflation and high unemployment. During Mr. Reagan's presidency he worked in a bipartisan manner to enact his bold agenda of restoring accountability and common sense to government, which led to an unprecedented economic expansion and opportunity for millions of Americans. Mr. Reagan's commitment to an active social policy agenda for the Nation's children helped lower crime and drug use in our neighborhoods. President Reagan's commitment to our armed forces contributed to the restoration of pride in America, in her values and in those cherished by the free world, and prepared America's Armed Forces to meet 21st Century challenges. President Reagan's vision of ``peace through strength'' led to the end of the Cold War and the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union, guaranteeing basic human rights for millions of people. It is entirely appropriate that on February 6, 2007, which will be the 96th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, and the third since his passing, we declare February 6th, 2007, to be Ronald Reagan Day and urge all citizens to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to fully authorize the necessary funds needed to complete the construction of a new VA medical facility near Denver, CO. I am joined by my colleague Senator Salazar on this important legislation. Thankfully, Congress authorized approximately 16 percent of the needed funds for this project last year in order to finalize planning and site acquisition. That is a promising start that enables the project planners to begin the serious business of building this hospital. Although this was a tremendous step forward, there is still a great deal more that needs to be accomplished in order for this hospital to become a reality. The current Denver VA hospital was built ``more than 50 years ago and as we are all well aware, medical technology has far surpassed what the builders of the Denver VA originally envisioned. This facility, which hosted the first liver transplant in 1963, has provided tremendous care over the years, but simply does not have the infrastructure to continue to provide our veterans the care they need in the 21st century. While I cannot say enough about the care and service our veterans receive at the current facility, many changes and improvements can and should be made, and a new facility is the only way to accomplish these goals. This new VA hospital to be located at Fitzsimons campus and the former home of the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center will carry on a strong tradition of providing exceptional medical care for our Nation's best and bravest citizens. The current Fitzsimons campus first began treating wounded veterans in 1918, specializing in assisting those who had been victims of chemical weapons in world War I. The facility continued to grow through the 20th century and became one of the premiere Veterans hospitals through World War II. Fitzsimons was even unofficially deemed the ``White House of the West'' when President Eisenhower spent 7 weeks in the facility while recovering from a heart condition in 1955. Fitzsimons Hospital was even the birthplace of my colleague, Senator Kerry. The new facility will provide an example of successful collaboration between numerous parties and will be the culmination of years of hard work. The Denver VA, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the University of Colorado Hospital already have a complex and rewarding partnership in meeting veterans' healthcare needs in the region, and all are partnered together on this unique project. The University of Colorado, who currently owns the land for the new hospital, strongly supports the move of the existing Denver VA medical facility to the Fitzsimons Campus in Aurora, CO, and looks forward to strengthening their partnership with the Veterans Administration, allowing each entity to focus on its strengths. Of course, the biggest endorsement of this new facility comes ultimately from the end-users: our veterans. The United Veterans Committee of Colorado, a coalition of 45 federally chartered veterans' service organizations, strongly supports the relocation of the Denver VA medical center to the Fitzsimons campus and has worked closely with my office and the Colorado congressional delegation over the years to ensure its success. Of course, not too long ago it looked like this project was in peril. Thankfully, in 2005 Secretary Nicholson brought a much-needed, fresh perspective to this project. He made it a priority and made it clear to the entire Colorado delegation that he would pursue every opportunity to make the project a reality. I commend his efforts and thank him for his support. It is also important to mention the hard work and diligence of those in Colorado who have also worked to ensure the success of this new hospital. Without the extraordinary efforts put forth by the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority and its chairman, city of Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer, an agreement would not have been reached on the ultimate location of the Hospital. I strongly support authorization of this hospital and look forward to seeing the completion of the new VA medical facility which undoubtedly will serve as a regional beacon for modern veteran medical care science not only for veterans in Colorado but throughout the entire Rocky Mountain region as well.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to fully authorize the necessary funds needed to complete the construction of a new VA medical facility near Denver, CO. I am joined by my colleague Senator Salazar on this important legislation. Thankfully, Congress authorized approximately 16 percent of the needed funds for this project last year in order to finalize planning and site acquisition. That is a promising start that enables the project planners to begin the serious business of building this hospital. Although this was a tremendous step forward, there is still a great deal more that needs to be accomplished in order for this hospital to become a reality. The current Denver VA hospital was built ``more than 50 years ago and as we are all well aware, medical technology has far surpassed what the builders of the Denver VA originally envisioned. This facility, which hosted the first liver transplant in 1963, has provided tremendous care over the years, but simply does not have the infrastructure to continue to provide our veterans the care they need in the 21st century. While I cannot say enough about the care and service our veterans receive at the current facility, many changes and improvements can and should be made, and a new facility is the only way to accomplish these goals. This new VA hospital to be located at Fitzsimons campus and the former home of the Fitzsimons Army Medical Center will carry on a strong tradition of providing exceptional medical care for our Nation's best and bravest citizens. The current Fitzsimons campus first began treating wounded veterans in 1918, specializing in assisting those who had been victims of chemical weapons in world War I. The facility continued to grow through the 20th century and became one of the premiere Veterans hospitals through World War II. Fitzsimons was even unofficially deemed the ``White House of the West'' when President Eisenhower spent 7 weeks in the facility while recovering from a heart condition in 1955. Fitzsimons Hospital was even the birthplace of my colleague, Senator Kerry. The new facility will provide an example of successful collaboration between numerous parties and will be the culmination of years of hard work. The Denver VA, the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and the University of Colorado Hospital already have a complex and rewarding partnership in meeting veterans' healthcare needs in the region, and all are partnered together on this unique project. The University of Colorado, who currently owns the land for the new hospital, strongly supports the move of the existing Denver VA medical facility to the Fitzsimons Campus in Aurora, CO, and looks forward to strengthening their partnership with the Veterans Administration, allowing each entity to focus on its strengths. Of course, the biggest endorsement of this new facility comes ultimately from the end-users: our veterans. The United Veterans Committee of Colorado, a coalition of 45 federally chartered veterans' service organizations, strongly supports the relocation of the Denver VA medical center to the Fitzsimons campus and has worked closely with my office and the Colorado congressional delegation over the years to ensure its success. Of course, not too long ago it looked like this project was in peril. Thankfully, in 2005 Secretary Nicholson brought a much-needed, fresh perspective to this project. He made it a priority and made it clear to the entire Colorado delegation that he would pursue every opportunity to make the project a reality. I commend his efforts and thank him for his support. It is also important to mention the hard work and diligence of those in Colorado who have also worked to ensure the success of this new hospital. Without the extraordinary efforts put forth by the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority and its chairman, city of Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer, an agreement would not have been reached on the ultimate location of the Hospital. I strongly support authorization of this hospital and look forward to seeing the completion of the new VA medical facility which undoubtedly will serve as a regional beacon for modern veteran medical care science not only for veterans in Colorado but throughout the entire Rocky Mountain region as well.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator from Wyoming will yield, I need more than a few minutes. I need probably about 7 minutes. Maybe if I can get 7 minutes after the vote, that would be all right.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an amendment I have been waiting for some time to try and bring up. I have a commitment from 6 o'clock to about 6:45. My inquiry is, do the managers of this amendment plan on being around here later this evening so I can have an opportunity to offer that amendment or can I have an opportunity Friday when we come in to bring up my amendment?

Mr. ALLARD. It is at the desk. I am willing to do it tomorrow morning if I could just get some time set aside.

Mr. ALLARD. As long as I have an opportunity to bring up my amendment, I would like that opportunity at some point.

Mr. ALLARD. With the hope that we could at least get it in the queue?

Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have introduced a couple of amendments. The reason I have done so is because I think we need to take this opportunity to address more than just minimum wage. My good friend from Massachusetts talked a lot about the working men and women of this country, but minimum wage does not address all the working men and women in this country. We need to broaden this legislation so we talk about those who are in business for themselves, the small businesspeople. Many times the working men and women of this country, when they start their business, which I have had a wonderful opportunity to do, have to save their money because they have to count on not making much money their first 2 or 3 years, if they make any at all. Then, after 3 years, maybe, if you do a good job and hit the market right, your business will survive. However, a lot of small businesspeople fail. So we need to understand, when we talk about the working American men and women of this country, we need to make sure we have legislation that is all inclusive. We need to keep all of them in mind when we work on this particular legislation. That is why so many of us believe this legislation needs to deal with more than just minimum wage. It needs to deal with some regulatory and tax relief for small businesspeople because they are working men and women in this country, also. I also rise today to ask the Members of the Senate to support my amendment, No. 169 to the pending minimum wage bill. It cuts at the heart of a rampant problem in this country; that is, identity theft. A resolution of this problem has the potential to help small business. On Monday, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary Chertoff on this issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that, under current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft. My amendment tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of existing information among Government agencies. It permits the Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary of Homeland Security, where such information is likely to assist in discovering identity theft, Social Security number misuse or violations of immigration law. This is going to help small businesses such as construction businesses, farmers, ranchers, drywall businesses, horticulture and landscape companies and many more. Specifically, this amendment requires the Commissioner to inform the Secretary of Homeland Security, upon discovery of a Social Security account number being used with multiple names, or where an individual has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a single tax year. It seems logical that we would already be doing this, but we are not. In the meantime, identity theft is plaguing innocent victims all across the country. We were reminded of the pervasiveness of this problem by the recent raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement of six Swift and Company meat-packing plants across the country on December 12, 2006. In total, agents apprehended 1,282 illegal alien workers on administrative immigration violations. Of these, 65 have also been charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations. Unfortunately, for the victims--that is the victims of identity theft--by the time the identity theft is discovered, the damage has already been done. Colorado is ranked fifth in the Nation for identity theft, and the citizens of my State of Colorado are no stranger to identity theft. For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income too high to qualify because all these individuals had been using her I.D. number and it was coming in to Social Security, and when they checked on her income, it was recorded much higher than what she was receiving. If this had been discovered earlier, before she had applied for her housing grants, there would have been fewer victims. Another example is a 10-year-old child in Douglas County who had his identity stolen. His Social Security number was being used at 17 different jobs. Now, if this had been discovered earlier, again, we would have had fewer victims. Others get stuck with big tax bills for wages they never earned. Clearly, theft is an issue that affects people of all ages and walks of life, particularly those working for minimum wage who may struggle to pay the cost of getting their identity back after it has been stolen. Again, if these cases could have been discovered earlier, then there would have been fewer victims. Yet when the Social Security Administration has reason to believe that a Social Security number is being used fraudulently, they are prevented from sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security. Withholding this information effectively enables thieves to continue to perpetrate the crime of identity theft against innocent victims. Pilot programs such as what was being used at Swift and Company are managed through the Department of Homeland Security. What they say to the employer is: We will help you verify that the employee's social security number is legitimate and it matches the name provided. However, Secretary Chertoff explained the limitations of the program. He said, if two people are using the same Social Security number at the same time, he can't get the information to recognize it. So when a number comes in to his agency when he is working with these pilot programs, all he can assure is that the name goes with the Social Security number. But he can't get the information out of the Social Security Administration as to whether two people are using the same number. In some cases, as in the child I mentioned, the same social security number is being used in as many as 17 different jobs at once. We have had thousands of cases in Colorado where this has happened, where the victim didn't realize that somebody else was using their Social Security number until they were contacted by the Internal Revenue Service and told that they weren't reporting all their income, and they discovered that somebody else was using it at their place of employment. So by simply sharing this information, cases of identity theft could be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft deserve to have this information acted on, and my amendment enables this. We have a choice. We can side with the victims or side with the thieves. I urge my colleagues to take the side of the victims and enact this commonsense reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert for the Record an article in the Rocky Mountain News entitled ``Owens Wants Action on ID Theft.''

Mr. ALLARD

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.

Mr. ALLARD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. ALLARD. The Senator from South Carolina seeks time? I yield time to the Senator.

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.

Mr. ALLARD

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

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are having a discussion on the floor about the amendment being proposed by Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, known as the second look at wasteful spending amendment, to the pending legislation, which is called the Legislative Transparency Act of 2007. I spoke on this particular amendment offered by Senator Gregg last week, and I came to the Chamber and expressed my strong support for what Senator Gregg is trying to do. For the life of me, I don't understand why we would want to put an issue such as this off, because it adds transparency to the process. That is the name of the bill we have before us: the Legislative Transparency Act of 2007. What the Gregg amendment would do is to allow the President to identify certain items in bills that are earmarks or may be classified as pork barrel spending. Then once those provisions have been identified, they would get singled out, and then, the President can bring those forward and allow the House and the Senate to vote on those separately. What happens so many times in legislation that comes before the Congress is a process which is called logrolling. It is an old term; it has been around for a long time. You just keep adding issues in there and adding issues in there and make a piece of legislation bigger, and you pick up votes, and the bill gets so big and cumbersome that it is difficult to find people who are going to vote against it because there are so many issues in there they support. So what Senator Gregg does to bring transparency to this process is to take out those single issues, give the President an opportunity to pull those out and send them back to both the House and the Senate, and we vote on them as a separate issue. That creates a clear position on that particular issue from the House and the Senate. I daresay if we do that, we will cut back on a lot of spending, for those of us who are concerned about the mounting deficits in our Federal budget, who are concerned about accountability, and who are concerned about the process around here, both in setting up a budget and then the appropriations bills that come forward. I think it is an accountability issue, and I hope we can bring this up and have a vote, in my view, the sooner the better because right now we are involved in an appropriations process that got bogged down from the last session because of earmarks and those kinds of spending provisions, and we are getting ready to go into a budget process and then right back into appropriations. So the sooner we can deal with this type of legislation, the better. I am hoping the leadership here in the Senate would consider and eventually allow us to bring this up, and as I say, the sooner the better because it brings accountability to the budget process. That is something we have all been talking about, those of us who are serious about getting the deficit under control, those of us who are serious about some accountability in the budgeting process. If I secure funding for a project in an appropriations bill, I don't have any problem letting people know about it because what I do is I go through the process of getting it authorized; that is, the authorizing committee has looked at it and they have verified that whatever it is that is in the amendment is legitimate, they have reached a consensus on what needs to be done to bring accountability to that particular project or program. Then you take it to the Appropriations Committee, and they allocate the money and they keep allocating the money, and by holding on to the purse strings, they continue to make that an accountable process. If we have any shortfall in what is going on, it is a lack of accountability in the budgeting process and in the appropriations process. I don't believe this makes it any more complicated. I myself think it is pretty straightforward, and I think it is constitutional. Now, we had sort of a line-item rescission process this Congress passed a number of years back with a large reform. The courts looked at it and decided it was unconstitutional. But in this legislation the final decision is made by the Congress. We leave control of the purse strings here in the Congress. The President just delineates a few of these programs or projects and then brings them back to the Senate, and we vote on them separately. So I just felt compelled to come to the floor and reemphasize how very important I believe it is that we step forward and we begin to act on these kinds of commonsense solutions Senator Gregg has offered. He was chairman of the Budget Committee. He has worked hard on this issue. I supported his Stop Overspending Act of 2006 when he introduced it in the last Congress. It had a similar provision in there. This is important. I hope we can get an opportunity to act on this particular provision before we move off of this piece of legislation. I ask my colleagues here in the Senate to join us in trying to bring excessive spending under control. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.