The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Senate section on pages S4308-S4311 on April 10, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Sanders):
S. 1077. A bill to safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is just over 4 years since our brave troops marched into Baghdad, bringing an end to the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Four long years later, however, over 141,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq and more are on the way, while that country continues its tragic descent into widespread violence and civil war. Four years later, the President continues to insist that he has no intention of bringing this war to an end--or even acknowledging when it might end. And, 4 years later, the American people are calling out in greater and greater numbers for an end to a misguided and open-ended military mission.
That is why, today, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I am introducing legislation that would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days, and that would require redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008, by ending funding for the war on that date. While I would personally prefer an even stronger approach, with a shorter time-frame, for ending the war, I am pleased to be working with the Majority Leader on this legislation. Senator Reid understands the terrible costs of this war, and he understands the solemn obligation we have in this body to bring it to a close. As he put it just a few days ago, ``It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain.'' I thank Senator Reid for his support and for agreeing to bring the bill up for a vote before Memorial Day. I am also pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse and Kennedy.
There is no U.S. military solution to Iraq's civil war, which the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) called a
``self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis.'' And even if there were a military solution, civil war is only one of the problems causing violence and instability in Iraq. Again, let me quote the NIE: ``the term `civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-
Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence.''
Most Americans recognize that it makes no sense to ask our troops to police an ongoing civil war. Nor does it make any sense to ask our troops to put down a Sunni insurgency, or to place them in the middle of ``Shia-on-Shia violence'' or ``criminally motivated violence'' in Iraq.
It does, however, make sense to address the ongoing threat posed by al Qaeda. For that reason, the Feingold-Reid legislation would allow
``targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations'' to continue in Iraq after March 2008. The bill also has narrow exceptions for U.S. troops to train and equip Iraqis and provide security for other U.S. troops and civilian personnel, but neither of these exceptions authorizes U.S. troops to engage in combat operations.
The Feingold-Reid bill allows targeted operations to take out terrorists who pose a threat to the United States, but it recognizes that maintaining a huge U.S. troop presence in Iraq doesn't help--in fact, it hurts--our global anti-terrorism efforts. By redeploying the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq, this legislation will allow us to re-focus on the broader fight against al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a one country franchise, and the President's strategy of devoting so much of our resources and attention to one country is short-sighted and counter-productive.
Some of my colleagues argue that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need.
Those arguments are false. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. The Feingold-Reid bill would end our involvement in the war without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a March 31, 2008, deadline after which funding for the war will be terminated, Congress can provide ample time for the President to safely redeploy our troops.
Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger made this point at a Judiciary Committee hearing I chaired entitled ``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.'' Speaking of my proposal to end funding for the war, he said: ``There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.''
This has been done before, in fact not that long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators, and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?
Of course not. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.
That same day, October 15, 1993, several Senators--myself included--
supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal or in case of American POWs or MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty-
eight Senators, most of them Republicans, opposed a measure to table that amendment. We did so because we understood that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops. As Senator Hatch said at the time, ``The McCain amendment provides the President with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops.''
Feingold-Reid also allows the President to bring our brave forces home with honor and without endangering them in any way. It is safe, it is responsible, and it is long overdue.
The President will not listen to the American people. It is up to this Congress--newly elected by Americans fed up with the President's mishandling of Iraq--to let the people's voices be heard. And it is up to this Congress to end a war that is undermining our national security and draining precious resources from the global fight against al Qaeda and its allies. Last November, the American people voted to end the war. Now it is up to Congress to do the same.
I yield the floor.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Smith):
S. 1078. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for employer-provided employee housing assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Housing America's Workforce Act. My legislation will address the need to ensure safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as creating and sustaining healthy communities for our Nation's workforce. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez for her leadership in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives.
The sad truth is that across the Nation, working full-time no longer guarantees the security and comfort of a home. The shortage of workforce housing has emerged as a national crisis as housing costs have far outgrown the rate of inflation in many markets. As the gap between wages and housing costs widens, affordable housing is pushed beyond the reach of an increasing number of working families.
As a result, people who provide the bulk of vital community services--teachers, firefighters, police officers, and laundry and restaurant workers--often cannot themselves afford to live in the high-
priced communities in which they serve. That is why I am reintroducing the Housing America's Workforce Act.
This bill creates incentives to expand employer assisted housing initiatives across the Nation. This legislation offers a tax credit of 50 cents for every dollar that an employer provides to eligible employees, up to $10,000 or six percent of the employee's home purchase price, whichever is less, or up to $2,000 for rental assistance.
In addition, this act defines housing assistance as a nontaxable benefit to ensure that employees receive the full value of employers' contributions. Finally, the act establishes a competitive grant program available to nonprofit housing organizations that provide technical assistance, program administration, and outreach support to employers undertaking housing assistance initiatives.
The benefits of this legislation are far reaching. Employees receive financial support to buy or rent a home closer to work, while their employer enjoys the benefits of a more stable workforce, including improved morale, and reduced turnover and recruitment resulting in bottom line savings. Furthermore, the surrounding community receives a new investment in the form of property taxes, as former commuters buy homes near the jobsite.
Research has shown that this legislation is needed. Recent data shows that the number of working families with critical housing problems, defined as those paying more than half of their income for housing and/
or living in dilapidated conditions, has increased 67 percent from 1997 to approximately 5 million families. In addition, a recent workforce housing study released by the National Association of Home Builders found that workers who provide vital services to the community can only find affordable housing in less than half of the Nation's top 25 metropolitan areas.
The Housing America's Workforce Act addresses our Nation's housing challenge from a new perspective by allowing the private sector to play a direct role in promoting housing affordability. This legislation will create opportunities for us as a Nation to expand these public-private partnerships and will make a profound impact in the lives of our workforce.
I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation and move it to the floor without delay.
______
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Obama (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Cantwell)):
S. 1084. A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homes for Heroes Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Schumer, Menendez, Brown and Cantwell in offering this legislation.
As we respond to the moral question of how we honor our sacred trust to care for our returning servicemembers and veterans, I am reminded of my grandfather, who signed up for duty in World War II the day after Pearl Harbor. He marched across Europe in Patton's army, and when he came home to Kansas, he could have very easily faced some tough times.
He could've had trouble paying for college, or finding a job, or even finding a home. But at the time, he lived in a country that recognized the value of his service--a country that kept its promise to defend those who have defended freedom. And so he was able to afford college through the GI Bill, and he was able to buy a house through the Federal Housing Administration, and he was able to work hard and raise a family and build his own American Dream.
And after I think about my grandfather, and the opportunities he had as a veteran, I then think about a veteran I met named Bill Allen, who told me that on a trip he took to Chicago, he actually saw homeless veterans fighting over access to the dumpsters. Think about that. Fighting over access to the dumpsters.
Each and every night in this country, more than 200,000 of our Nation's veterans are homeless. And nearly twice as many will experience homelessness over the course of a year. There is no single cause for this.
Homeless vets are men and women, single and married. Many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; others were physically and mentally battered in combat. A large number left the military without job skills that could be easily used in the private sector.
All have risked their lives for their country. All deserve--at the very least--the basic dignity of going to sleep at night with a roof over their head. And every day we allow them to go without, it brings shame to every single one of us.
This is wrong. It's wrong because we're quick to offer words of praise for our troops when they're abroad, but quick to forget about their needs when they come home. It's wrong because we have the resources and the programs in place to help solve this problem. And it's wrong on a fundamentally moral level--the idea that we would allow such brave and selfless citizens to suffer in such biting poverty. And so it is now our responsibility--it is now our duty--to make this right.
These heroes often have not connected to vital housing and supportive services that could make all of the difference. Many more low income veterans and veteran families live at the margins and are at risk of becoming homeless in the absence of permanent housing solutions and supportive services. While it's one thing to get veterans off the streets temporarily, it's another to keep them off--to place veterans in real, permanent homes. In fact, the VA has consistently identified permanent housing as one of the top three unmet needs in the fight against veteran homelessness. And despite the tremendous demand for homeless services, the federal government serves only a tiny fraction of those who are in need.
That's why I'm introducing a bill today called the Homes for Heroes Act. This is a bill that would help expand access to long-term, affordable housing by creating a fund so that the community and nonprofit organizations could purchase, build, or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans.
So that we don't just leave them to face their personal challenges on their own, the organizations would also provide services like counseling, employment training, and child care to the veterans who live in this housing. And the Homes for Heroes Act would expand the number of permanent housing vouchers for veterans from the current number of less than 2,000 to 20,000, and make this authorization permanent. These are vouchers that have been highly successful in giving veterans the chance to afford a place to live.
Every day in America, there are men and women on street corners with handwritten signs that say ``Homeless Veteran--Will Work For Food.'' Sometimes we give a dollar, sometimes we just keep walking. These are soldiers who fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. They made a commitment to their country when they chose to serve and now we must keep our commitment to them. Because when we make the decision to send our troops to war, we also make the decision to care for them, to speak for them, and to think of them--always--when they come home.
This kind of America--an America of opportunity, of collective responsibility for each other--is the kind that so many of our parents and grandparents came home to after the Second World War. Now it's time for us to build this America for those sons and daughters who come home today.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lott, Mr. Allard, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 1083. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase competitiveness in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation from last Congress--the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership Act of 2007 or the ``SKIL Act of 2007''. In the past two years, there has been so much focus by this Congress and this Administration on restoring America's competitive advantage. The President has proposed the America's Competitiveness Initiative. Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor the Protecting America's Competitive Edge bills and the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006. In the 110th Congress, I have cosponsored along with 44 other Senators the America COMPETES Act. This is a bipartisan legislative response to recommendations contained in the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate America'' report.
The one thing we have learned through the process of retaining America's competitiveness is that everyone has to do their part to keep our country's economy strong and viable. Currently, we are working very hard on comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased to be a part of that process. However, our country, right now, is losing its competitive edge in the global market. Why? Because our immigration policies prohibit us from retaining some of the ``best and brightest'' students currently graduating from U.S. colleges and universities--
especially those with advanced degrees in science and technology. We also continue to lose highly qualified and highly skilled workers to foreign competitors because of our failed immigration system.
Recently Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates made it clear the dire situation we are faced with today in terms of high-skilled labor shortages:
``For generations, America has prospered largely by attracting the world's best and brightest to study, live, and work in the United States. Our success at attracting the greatest talent has helped us become a global innovation leader, enriched our culture, and created economic opportunities for all Americans.
Unfortunately, America's immigration policies are driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most . . . Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well-
trained, highly skilled individuals--many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities--that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message.
This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains.''
The U.S. Department of Labor projects that between 2002 and 2012 there will be 2 million U.S. job openings in the fields of computer science, mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences. The SKIL bill would retain foreign students educated in the U.S. to ensure continued competition in the global market.
As I have stated before, a critical part of America's economy is our ability to innovate but our current immigration policies are threatening future growth. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's recent announcement that the 2008 cap for H-1B workers was met in one day makes clear that we urgently need to reform our policies for highly-skilled workers in the scientific and technology fields. Because the U.S. has already met the cap for H-1B visas, foreign students graduating from our universities this spring are virtually shut out of the U.S. job market. This situation is unprecedented. If we don't act, America's technology companies will be harmed and our economy will suffer. The SKIL bill will allow the U.S. to remain competitive in this global economy.
The SKIL bill promotes competitiveness and allows the U.S. to remain competitive in this global economy. While I encourage and intend to be a part of the continued dialogue on overall immigration reform, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this issue.
____________________
