Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to discuss investing in our Nation's future through agricultural research.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 10 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Credit Card Practices: Fees, Interest Rates, and Grace Periods.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room 418 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the VA Claims Adjudication Process.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of the Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws'' on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list The Honorable Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; the Honorable Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The McCarran-Ferguson Act and Antitrust Immunity: Good for Consumers?'' on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list Panel I: The Honorable Trent Lott, U.S. Senator, R-MS; the Honorable Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator, D-LA. Panel II: Michael Homan, Homeowner, New Orleans, LA; J. Robert Hunter, Insurance Director, Consumer Federation of America, Washington, DC; Marc Racicot, President, American Insurance Association, Washington, DC; Susan E. Voss, Iowa Insurance Commissioner, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Des Moines, IA.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-430.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet for a hearing on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 3 p.m. in SD-406. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the President's FY 2008 EPA budget.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to investigate market constraints on large investments in advanced energy technologies and investigate ways to stimulate additional private-sector investment in the deployment of these technologies.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review national imperatives for Earth science research.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to evaluate policy implications of pharmaceutical importation from Canada.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Monday, March 5; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; that at 3:00 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 4, the 9/11 Commission legislation.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. If there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, there have been discussions about the vote schedule for Monday. The leader has indicated we will be voting Monday at 5:30. For the information of the Senate, the vote at 5:30 Monday will be with respect to an Executive Calendar matter.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort His Majesty King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, into the House Chamber for a joint meeting at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, March 7, 2007.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, for the last few weeks, a bipartisan group of Senators has worked to bring to the floor a resolution expressing opposition to the President's proposal to increase American troops in Iraq. In an effort to have an honest, thoughtful, and productive debate, they put aside their differences, only to be run over by partisan politics. I support the bipartisan resolution opposing the escalation. I support an honest and open debate on a policy that clearly needs to change. But I do not support what I saw take place in this Chamber yesterday. Our soldiers and their families have sacrificed too much to accept the political obstructionism that is keeping this body from having a debate on a most critical issue. Our troops have given so much, and they deserve much more than what they got from the U.S. Senate yesterday. The least we can do is to have this debate, and the best we can do is to get this policy right for our troops. I would like to thank those who worked on this resolution: Senators Levin and Warner and Senators Biden and Hagel and others. Throughout their careers, they have shown how much they care for the men and women in uniform. In crafting these resolutions, they showed us that when principled individuals from opposing parties care strongly about an issue, politics doesn't always have to win out. Unfortunately, some in this body still don't want to have a debate about Iraq. It is long past time to have this debate. The American people have called for it, our troops have earned it, and we should be big enough to have it. Over 3,000 American soldiers are dead, more than 20,000 have been wounded in combat, over 2,000 have lost their limbs, and more than $350 billion of taxpayer money has gone to Iraq. Scores of Iraqis are killed every day in what has essentially devolved into a civil war. All across my State, I have heard a strong and clear message from Minnesotans: Change the course in Iraq and push for the strategy and solutions that will bring our troops home. We need a surge in diplomacy, Mr. President, not a surge in troops. It is a message that was echoed all across this country from Montana to Minnesota, from Pennsylvania to Virginia. Unfortunately, there were those in this Chamber yesterday who did not listen to that message, who would prefer no debate. This bipartisan resolution expresses the strong opposition of this body to the President's decision to stay the course and send an additional 21,000 American troops to Iraq. I strongly support this bipartisan resolution and implore my colleagues to allow this resolution its due course. The people of Minnesota, like their fellow citizens around the country, recognize what is at stake in Iraq. Of the 22,000 troops involved in the surge, nearly 3,000 are from Minnesota. As I have traveled throughout our State, I have spoken with many families who have paid a personal price in this war, and I think of them often. I think of Claremont Anderson from Hoffman, MN, who would drive hundreds of miles to attend public events in the last 2 years. I just saw him and his wife Nancy this weekend; they braved 7-degree below- zero wind chills to come to an event in Glenwood, MN. When I see Claremont, any time anyone even talks about the war, he starts to cry. That is because his son Stuart, an Army Reserve major, was killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq. I think of Kathleen Wosika from St. Paul, MN. Just last month, her son, James Wosika, Jr., was killed while he was patrolling on foot in an area near Fallujah. He was a sergeant with the Army National Guard 1st Brigade, whose current duty will be extended under the President's escalation. Sergeant Wosika was the third member of his unit to die within a 6-month period. He was the seventh member of the brigade to be killed since their deployment last spring. I also think of Becky Lourey of Kerrick, MN. That is near Duluth. She is a mother of 12 and a former State senator. Her son Matt was killed when the Army helicopter he was piloting went down north of Baghdad. I watched this Gold Star mother, a woman who has adopted eight children, comfort her grandchildren, hold her shaking husband, and stand tall for hours in a high school gym in Finlayson, MN, where hundreds of people came to gather for her son's memorial service. Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are parents whose children made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country, and they are among the many Minnesotans who told me without apology they want to see a change of course in Iraq. They pray others will not have to experience their pain. Although I opposed this war from the beginning, I recognized that many did support it. But 4 years later, we are now dealing with a dramatically different situation. What we know now about the events and facts leading up to this war has changed dramatically. The conditions inside Iraq have changed dramatically. Our role there has changed dramatically. Last November, citizens in Minnesota and across the country voted for a new direction in Washington. Americans made clear at the ballot box they were tired of the politics-as-usual partisan bickering and that they wanted a meaningful and bipartisan change of course in Iraq. To the country's bewilderment, the President responded with a plan to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq. That is not the change in course the American people voted for. It is not the change in course the Iraq Study Group recommended. It is not the change in course Iraq needs to halt its civil war. It is not the change in course our military forces deserve. Distinguished Senators from both sides of the aisle are seeking ways for this body to bring about the right kind of change. The bipartisan resolution proposes a strategy that recognizes the facts on the ground in Iraq. It incorporates many of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. For years, we have heard from administration officials, from military officials, and from the Iraqis themselves that there can be no military solution in Iraq. Stability can only be achieved through diplomatic and political solutions. This resolution calls on the administration to engage other nations in the region to create conditions for the compromises between Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds that will be necessary for peace. Furthermore, the resolution calls on the administration to apply pressures on the Iraqis themselves to stand up and take responsibility for their country. By following the recommendations of this resolution, the President would send a much stronger signal to the Iraqis that we are not going to be staying there indefinitely. As of last Thanksgiving, this war has now lasted longer than World War II, and after nearly 4 years of intensive military involvement in Iraq, including more than 3,000 American deaths, we have to be focused on reducing our troop presence in Iraq instead of putting even more American service men and women in harm's way. Haven't we asked our men and women to sacrifice enough? Recently, at the funeral for a fallen soldier, I heard a local priest say that our leaders have an obligation to do right by our children when we send them to war. He said that our children may be over 6 feet tall when we send them to war, but they are still our children. ``If the kids we are sending to Iraq are 6 feet tall,'' he said, ``then our leaders must be 8 feet tall.'' I would add that if these soldiers are willing to stand up and risk their lives for our country, then those of us in the Congress must be brave enough to stand up and ask the tough questions and push for the tough solutions. Claremont Anderson, Kathleen Wosika, and Becky Lourey are standing tall. The parents I met with this weekend whose kids are supposed to be coming home this month but are now staying much longer, they are now doing everything to be brave and stand tall. The 400 members of the Air Minnesota National Guard whose deployment ceremony I attended Sunday, in Duluth, MN, they are standing tall. The teenage brother and sister who will see not only their dad but also their mom be deployed in the next 2 weeks, those two kids are standing tall. My friend Senator Webb, who will speak with us momentarily and whose son is serving bravely, he is over there and he is not afraid. He is standing tall. The injured soldiers in the VA hospital in Minnesota recovering from traumatic brain injuries and in their wheelchairs with their strength and their spirit, they too are standing tall. I would say to my friends across the aisle, by having an honest and open debate on this war and on this resolution, we in Congress can also and finally stand tall. Our Constitution says that Congress should be a responsible check and balance on Presidential power. Congressional oversight for Iraq policy is long overdue. We have seen this bipartisan resolution and bipartisan work challenging the President's proposal for an escalation of American troop levels in Iraq. Even as Commander In Chief, our President does not enjoy unlimited power. On behalf of the public, Members of this body have a responsibility to exercise our own constitutional power in a fairminded, bipartisan way, to insist on accountability, and to demand a change of course. Ultimately, the best way to help our soldiers and their families is not only to give them the respect they deserve but also to get this policy right. I hope that my friends across the aisle will see the merits of this resolution and the urgency of having an open and honest debate on this issue; our troops and their families deserve nothing less. I thank the Chair. Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. No, Mr. President.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 2:30 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Baucus and Kyl or their designees; that at 2:30 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to Senator Kyl's amendment No. 209; that no other amendment be in order prior to that vote; that following that vote, amendment No. 115 be considered in order for purposes of drafting under rule XXII; and that all other amendments to the bill and to the substitute be withdrawn accept for amendment No. 115; and that no other amendments be in order except the substitute and amendment No. 115.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 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.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. President. Iraq Mr. President, I want to briefly address the ethics bill before this Congress, but before I do that, I want to discuss an issue of paramount importance to my State, in light of the President's recent address, and that is the war in Iraq. Sending more American troops is not the change of course the people of Minnesota and the American people called for in this past election, and it is not the change of course our military forces deserve. We learned this week that 3,000 of the 22,000 troops added for the escalation are from Minnesota's National Guard. These Minnesota soldiers have already served honorably and well. They and their families were told they would be coming home in March. And I just talked to General Shellito, who heads up the National Guard in Minnesota. He said the hardest thing for them is they have been hanging on--in his words: ``hanging on''--through March. And now they are extended well into the summer. These brave soldiers will be thrust even more deeply into the midst of Iraq's civil war. Haven't we asked our soldiers and their families to sacrifice enough? The great burden on Minnesota and the rest of the country should remind us that what is needed is a surge in diplomacy and not a surge in troops. With that, Mr. President, I would like to turn to the issue of ethics reform. I thank Senator Reid and the other Senators for their leadership and for making ethics reform a real priority for this Congress. When I arrived in Washington last week, we pulled up in our family Saturn, loaded with my husband's college dishes and a shower curtain I found in the basement from 1980. But we brought a little more than dishes and a shower curtain. We, also, brought a commitment for change, something the people of our State--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, from Worthington to Moorhead to Duluth to Rochester-- called for very clearly and loudly in November. We also brought a Minnesota moral compass, grounded in a simple notion of Minnesota fairness--a notion that all people should be on equal footing in the Halls of Congress. But they cannot be on equal footing when their elected representatives are selling their votes for trips to Scotland or stashing away cash in the freezer. They cannot be on equal footing unless this new Congress delivers real, meaningful ethics reform. Ethics reform is an issue of great importance to the people of my State. Wherever I went, Minnesotans told me this was the kind of change that they wanted to see in Washington. It is not an abstract political science issue. It affects real people in the real world. And today it comes out of the political science classrooms and into the Halls of Congress. Ethics is woven into the very fabric of how our Government does business. Ethics reform goes to the very heart of our democracy, to the public trust and respect that is essential to the health of our constitutional system. Recent scandals have cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the laws and policies that come out of Washington. The American public's receding faith in the integrity of our legislative process means that ethics reform is now central to every public issue that we will consider whether it is energy policy, health care reform, fiscal reform, or even homeland security. The ability of Congress to deal credibly and forthrightly with these other issues depends on reforming our own ethical rules. The long-term challenges that we face in this country are enormous. They include high energy prices and a growing dependency on foreign oil, health care costs that have spiraled out of control, global warming that threatens the future of our environment and our economy, a mounting national debt, and a growing middle-class squeeze. I believe that there are solutions to these challenges. While not always immediate, these solutions are within our grasp. We can achieve energy independence by investing smartly and having some guts to take on the oil companies. We can get this country back on the right fiscal track and move forward to more affordable health care. We can deliver much needed and long overdue relief to the middle class. These are the things the people of Minnesota sent me to Washington to fight for. They sent me here because they have not yet seen the bold change of direction that we need to make these solutions happen. Instead, they have seen a Washington that too often serves big special interests at the expense of the middle class. As a prosecutor, I learned firsthand how the well-connected and powerful do not face the same challenges as middle-class families. Every day, I would go into our courthouse in Minnesota with a mission to treat people the same no matter where they came from. When we prosecuted a wealthy, well-connected person for a white-collar crime, the courtroom was packed with his friends. I would get all kinds of calls. One of my favorites was, ``I know he stole $400,000 from a mentally disabled woman, but he is such a good guy; he shouldn't go to prison.'' But when we prosecuted someone who was poor or middle class, they were lucky if their mom could take the day off from work to stand behind them in the courtroom. My job was to even the playing field and to treat people the same no matter where they came from and who they knew. That is still my job, and it is the job of this Congress. With that in mind, we need to change business as usual. Business as usual has created a playing field tilted toward special interests and against the middle class. When our energy policy is drafted in secret meetings with the oil companies, we all end up paying more at the pump because they have failed to invest in renewable energy. When our health care legislation is written by the drug companies, we pay more because they have banned negotiation on prices. The people of this country know corruption when they see it. They saw this last November who was benefiting and who was getting hurt. Business as usual doesn't only generate bad policy and wasteful spending, it also erodes public trust in the integrity of our Government institutions, our elected leaders, and the law-making process itself. We the American people know what we want from Washington. It is this: a Government that is focused on doing what is best for our Nation and on securing a better and more prosperous future for the people. There are so many people of good faith on both sides of the aisle who want to see this happen. Like me, they want to solve the great challenges of our day and to restore public faith in our Government. They know, as I do, that General Omar Bradley was right back in 1948 when he said that ``we need to start steering our ships by the stars, instead of the lights of each passing ship.'' The new leadership that took the helm last week has already begun that change in course. They have introduced the ethics reform package at issue today as the very first bill to be considered by the new Senate. It has been an honor to work with Senator Reid and with colleagues such as Senators Feingold and Obama, and with a great class of freshmen that includes the Presiding Officer, as well as Senator Tester who is here with me today, who share a passion for ethics reform. I am also pleased by the bipartisan support for this bill. The proposals being offered will strengthen the original S. 1 in a number of important areas, including stricter travel rules, enhanced lobbying disclosure requirements, tougher restrictions on the revolving door between Capitol Hill and lobbying firms, and additional earmarking reform. It is also my understanding that the Senate will thoughtfully address methods to improve ethics enforcement in debates and hearings over the next few months. Speaking as a former prosecutor, I have expressed to a number of Senators the great value of strong, sensible enforcement. I am particularly gratified to see Senator Reid's amendment No. 4 contain improvements to the Senate gift and meal rules. Under current law, anyone, including a lobbyist, is permitted to buy a gift or a meal for a Senator or a staff member up to a certain dollar amount. We need to make sensible changes to current law. A decade ago, the Minnesota Legislature passed a strong, clear rule in this area. Lobbyists and those who employ them cannot give gifts or meals to State or local officials, subject to very limited exceptions that were meant to be just that--limited exceptions. For more than 10 years, our State officials have abided by these rules, which are rooted in Minnesota values. I followed them as county prosecutor, and the results have been greater fairness in our democratic process and greater faith in our Government. A rule banning gifts and meals from both lobbyists and those who hire lobbyists worked in Minnesota, and it can work in Washington, DC. I want to make clear that my support for this rule is no reflection on my colleagues who have humbled me with their good faith, honor, and integrity since I arrived in Washington. Instead, I support it because the urgency of our need to restore public faith in Government has convinced me that clear, bright line rules are best. Such rules don't impose unreasonable constraints and do not adversely affect citizens' rights to petition their Government. But it does send a strong, clear message and an important signal to the American people that we are focused solely on representing their interests. Last week at my swearing in a number of people and Senators from both sides of the aisle came up to me remembering the great Senators who have come to Washington from the State of Minnesota. It is humbling to follow in the footsteps of people such as Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone. I was reminded many times this past week of the great things they did and said. On Humphrey's gravestone, there is an inscription, a quote from Humphrey himself. It says: I have enjoyed my life, its disappointments outweighed by its pleasures. I have loved my country in a way that some people consider sentimental and out of style. I still do. And I remain an optimist with joy, without apology about this country and about the American experiment in democracy. Like Humphrey, Mr. President, I, too, remain an optimist about this grand experiment in democracy. I remain an optimist because the people in my State and across the country have spoken up for change. I remain an optimist because the people in this Chamber are devoted to getting things done, and getting them done the right way. I remain an optimist because this American experiment in democracy has worked best when we, the American people, without apology, have demanded accountability. This past November was one of those times. The American people spoke out for change. We need to answer them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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