[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3335-S3346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT--
                               Continued

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are debating welfare reform. It is 
critical to our country that we do this and revitalize it. It is a 
major piece of legislation that has been very successful over the 
years, getting people out of welfare into a productive job in our 
economy.
  I don't know who the historian was who once said it. He was an 
economist and a historian. He said, The greatest form of welfare in the 
world is a good job in the private sector--we know that to be a fact--a 
good well-paying job.
  When you cannot find that, welfare in our country is that safety net 
we have designed and defined for those who truly need it, but 
recognizing that it is not a place to stay; it is a place to catch you 
if you fall, to help you, and to provide for you and your family, but 
only in the temporary form so we can get people off of welfare and back 
out into the private sector and into a job.
  In a few moments, the Senator from Massachusetts is going to talk 
about jobs and level of pay in those jobs. I thought for just a few 
moments it would be appropriate as we talk about welfare and as we talk 
about jobs and how much we pay for jobs as a minimum wage, that we 
ought to talk about job creation in this country and how critically 
important it is.

  Some have said our recovery out of this recession has been jobless. 
Well, that is not true. A lot of jobs are being created out there, and 
a lot of people are now going back to work--not as rapidly as we had 
hoped they would, but certainly they are headed back to work.


                         National Energy Policy

  But there is a dark cloud over the horizon, and that dark cloud is 
there today because the Congress of the United States, and the Senate 
in particular, a year ago denied this country a new national energy 
policy and the ability to begin to produce energy, once again.
  We are no longer energy independent. That one driving force we had in 
the economic matrix that said we could produce something for less--
because we had the great ingenuity of the American workforce and 
because the input of energy was less than anywhere else in the world, 
so we could produce it better and we could produce it for less cost--is 
no longer true today.
  If you went out this morning to refuel your car before you headed to 
work, you paid at an all-time high level of gas prices. Why? Because 
the Senate of the United States denied this country a national energy 
policy.
  We know it is happening. We have seen it headed in that direction for 
over 7 years. Many of us have pled on this floor to develop that policy 
to get us back into production. But, no, we are not into production, we 
are not producing at a level we could be and we should be. We are not 
creating all the kinds of alternative fuels we ought to be. Why? 
Because we have not established a national energy policy in the last 8 
years.
  The world has changed a great deal. We are now over half dependent on 
foreign sources of oil. Of course, there are many who will rush to the 
floor and point a finger at OPEC or point a finger at the political 
turmoil in Venezuela and say: Well, that is their problem, and it is 
their fault we are paying higher energy prices. Or we will have that 
proverbial group that will run out and point their finger at big oil.
  Why don't we point the finger at the Senate, for once, which has 
denied this country a national energy policy? The Senator from New 
Mexico was on the floor a few moments ago, Mr. Bingaman. He worked 2 
years ago to get one. I helped him, and we could not quite get there.
  Then the other Senator from New Mexico did produce a policy, and we 
passed it in a bipartisan way. It went to the House, and we conferenced 
it, and the House passed the conference. It came back here. It fell 
apart. It fell apart for one little reason or another, but the bottom 
line was the politics of it. The Senate of the United States has again 
denied the consumer and the working man and woman the right to have an 
energy source and a competitive energy price to go to work on, or to 
work with when they get to work, or to have for recreation, or to have 
to heat their home, or to have to turn the lights on in their house, 
and to illuminate and energize the computer they use.
  The driving force of the economy of this country is not the politics 
on the street today; it is the politics of energy. It always has been. 
When we have competitive, moderate-to-low energy prices, the American 
worker can produce and compete with any workforce in the world. 
But today we are slowly but surely denying them that.

  Natural gas is at an all-time high. Gas at the pump is at an all-time 
high. Electricity prices in many areas around this country are at an 
all-time high. The great tragedy is, many of those prices are 
artificially inflated because of the politics of the issue, because 
this Senate has denied the American worker and the American consumer a 
national energy policy.
  Now, some say, well, the wealthy are going to get wealthy off of 
this. What about the poor? Has anybody ever calculated that high energy 
prices impact poor people more than any other segment in our society?
  If you are a household with an average annual income of $50,000, you 
only spend about 4 percent of your income on energy. But if you are a 
household with an income between $10,000 and $24,000, you spend 13 
percent; you spend a higher proportion of your total income on energy. 
If you are a household of $10,000 or less, or at about 130-plus percent 
of poverty, you spend almost 30 percent of everything you make on 
energy--whether it is the gas you put in your car, or the throwing of a 
switch to illuminate the light bulb in your ceiling, or the heat for 
your home.
  High energy prices impact poor people more, and yet we will still 
hear these great allegations on the floor that somebody is going to get 
rich off of energy.
  No. Poor people are going to get poorer with higher energy prices. 
That is the impact and the reality of the problems we face.
  The United States is making do now with a lot less energy on a per 
capita basis. Some say: We can just conserve our way out of this 
situation. We are doing a very good job in conservation today than we 
did, let's say, 20 years ago.
  Let me give you a figure or two. In the last three decades, the U.S. 
economy has grown 126 percent, but energy use has grown only 30 
percent. In other words, as our economy grows today, as a rate of a 
unit of production, we use less energy. Why? Efficiencies, new 
technologies. But as we grow, we are still going to need more energy. 
So the old argument about conserving your way out--and, oh, my 
goodness, if I have heard it once on the Senate floor in the last 6 
years, I have heard it 2 or 3 times, that automobile fuel consumption 
has dropped 60 percent in that 20-year period. And we ought to be proud 
of that.
  That is partly a work of the Senate, but that is also the new 
technologies and efficiencies. Per capita oil consumption is down 20 
percent since 1978.

[[Page S3336]]

Industrial energy use is down 20 percent since 1978. So the reality is, 
we have done well.
  But if you want to create 800,000 new jobs, then it is going to take 
energy to produce them. Because it is energy that drives the great 
economy of our country. And when it is high-priced energy, then the 
jobs become high priced. When the jobs become high priced, then we 
worry about those jobs leaving the United States.
  Why hasn't the Senate of the United States put this relatively simple 
formula together, that high-cost energy creates a less competitive 
environment in which we can produce. If we are going to talk welfare--
and we are and we should; and we are going to reform it--and we are 
going to talk minimum wage, and there is no reason why we should not 
talk minimum wage--then we have to talk about the economy of creating 
jobs at the same time.

  The production tax credit we are talking about for the energy field 
alone would create 150,000 new jobs. As I said, the bill we have in 
front of us--that should pass unanimously in this Senate, but it cannot 
get there--will create literally between 670,000 and 800,000 new jobs 
during the initial phases of the development of that kind of energy.
  My message to the consumer today: If you do not like the price of 
your energy bill this winter, if you do not like the price of gas at 
your pump, if you are worried about your job because it may be going 
overseas, because your production is less competitive today, pick up 
the phone and call your Senator. Ask him or her why--ask us why--we did 
not pass a national energy bill. There is nothing wrong with doing 
that. Because we should have done that. We should have started down 
that road of getting ourselves back into the production. But, oh, no, 
we are bound up in the politics of this business, and somehow we just 
cannot get there. And try as we have for the last 5 years, in a 
bipartisan way, we have worked to do so.
  We have a bill before us now that ought to receive a nearly 
resounding unanimous vote, but it failed in the Senate. Our failure 
means the jobs of America's working men and women are at risk, the 
household automobile is now much more expensive to operate, and you 
will probably want to turn your thermostat down next winter if gas 
prices continue to go as high as they appear to be going.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 2945

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Kennedy and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 2945.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for 
                an increase in the Federal minimum wage)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FAIR MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Fair 
     Minimum Wage Act of 2004''.
       (b) Increase in the Minimum Wage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the 
     date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004;
       ``(B) $6.45 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th 
     day; and
       ``(C) $7.00 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th 
     day;''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Applicability of Minimum Wage to the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (2) Transition.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the minimum 
     wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall be--
       (A) $3.55 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date 
     of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) increased by $0.50 an hour (or such lesser amount as 
     may be necessary to equal the minimum wage under section 
     6(a)(1) of such Act), beginning 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 6 months thereafter until the 
     minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands under this subsection is equal to the minimum 
     wage set forth in such section.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
my colleague from Massachusetts who is the true leader on the issue of 
trying to raise the minimum wage so that people who are trying to get 
into the workforce, get off of welfare and subsidy, will be able to 
actually support their families so that we actually reward work, and it 
is going to make a huge difference.
  Before I go into my remarks, I do want to, however, respond to my 
friend who spoke about how important it is to call your Senators and 
ask them to pass that Energy bill that we killed. I hope when you call 
us, you will tell us not to pass that one. That one was a travesty of 
justice for consumers. It was a terrible bill if you care about the 
environment. And it was a terrible bill if you believe that there is 
already too much corporate welfare because there were huge subsidies to 
the nuclear industry.
  There were huge subsidies by way of giving a liability waiver to 
those companies that made MTBE, which destroyed drinking water supplies 
all over the country. The Senate was sending this bill over to a 
conference committee, and it comes back with this liability waiver. It 
is a terrible bill.
  Yes, there are places we could drill in this country, where the folks 
want it there and the oil is there. Off the Gulf of Mexico, near 
Louisiana, certain places in Alaska, it makes sense. But it does not 
make sense to pass an Energy bill that is back to the future because it 
doesn't understand that times have changed and just a couple of extra 
miles of fuel economy and fuel efficiency in our automobiles can mean 
that we will have fields and fields of energy in the future.
  The last point I want to make--and then I want to talk about this 
amendment which is important to this bill--is that on April 25 or 
thereabouts, taxpayers are funding a court case where Dick Cheney, the 
Vice President, is refusing to reveal who came into his office when he 
put together an energy report and worked on an Energy bill. It is 
outrageous that taxpayers have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, 
essentially, because they are paying for the defense of Dick Cheney, 
and he refuses to reveal who met with him about the Energy bill, what 
they talked about, and what their interests were. We know Enron was in 
that meeting. That much we know. But I don't know who else was there.
  So I just wanted to answer the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Craig, 
because in my view, we did a great service to the people by not passing 
that particular Energy bill. Let's pass an Energy bill that is a good 
Energy bill.
  Now, I want to get to the amendment I sent to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Kennedy and lay the groundwork for why it is so 
important to this welfare reform bill.
  The last time the Federal minimum wage was raised it was $4.25 an 
hour. In 1996, it was raised to $5.15. It was over a 2-year period. So 
that is 8 years ago; 8 years ago we raised the Federal minimum wage. 
Those people at the bottom of the economic ladder are living on $10,700 
a year.
  I don't know if my colleagues are aware of what it costs to rent an 
apartment, if you have a family, and you are trying to raise a family 
on this amount of money. I guess you might be lucky, in my neck of the 
woods, to try and get some sort of an apartment for $800 a month or 
$850, if you could even find one. You can't find it around here, a 
decent size place. That would use up the entire salary of someone 
living on the minimum wage.

  I say to my colleagues, please support this. How can we expect people 
to live on this amount of money, to be able to afford rent, food, the 
minimum requirements for raising a family?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?

[[Page S3337]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. It is true, is it not, that 60 percent of the people who 
draw the minimum wage are women?
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. And for 40 percent of those women, that is the only money 
they get for them and their families?
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is accurate.
  Mr. REID. So this is an issue that doesn't relate to kids at 
McDonald's flipping hamburgers. It relates to people supporting their 
families. I greatly admire the Senator for being the lead person on 
this amendment dealing with the minimum wage that will affect families 
in Nevada and around the rest of the country. Is that not true?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely true. In my State we have a minimum 
wage that is higher than the Federal minimum wage, but there is no 
question that the Federal minimum wage is a benchmark number.
  A poverty rate for a family of three in our country today is $15,607. 
And for a family of four, it is $18,850. So, yes, if you are a single 
mom or a single dad and you are working at a minimum-wage job, you are 
making less than people who are considered to be in poverty. What a 
travesty.
  And even if you have two workers working at the minimum wage, you 
would barely get out of the poverty range. So we are talking about a 
severe deficiency in compassion. These days, we hear a lot about 
compassionate conservatives. I have seen a conservative side. I want to 
see the compassionate side on this particular vote.
  How can anyone believe it is fair to keep the minimum wage where it 
has been for 8 years? It is not fair.
  We are talking about a bill that seeks to lift people out of the 
darkest, deepest economic hole. We want to start them on their way to 
being able to take care of themselves and their families. You cannot 
lift yourself out of a deep economic hole on a minimum-wage job.
  As my friend from Nevada points out, we used to think of the minimum 
wage--when I was a kid it was 50 cents an hour, and the kids took the 
minimum-wage jobs. What I used to work at when I was a kid was 50 cents 
an hour.
  I am showing my age. Maybe I shouldn't do that. But we didn't look at 
families who were surviving on that. Today we are looking at families 
who are surviving on the minimum wage.
  We can be sure of one thing: If we don't lift the minimum wage, 
people may move off of welfare into the workforce, but they will not 
move out of poverty.
  Studies have shown that between half and three-quarters of those who 
are leaving welfare remain poor for up to 3 years. The courage that it 
takes to train yourself for work, to get up every day and not even to 
be able to afford to pay the rent--this isn't right.
  Some may say: Senator, these minimum-wage jobs are just starter jobs. 
They are just a few months.
  Studies prove that you may be stuck in that job for 3 years, and that 
is just average. You may be stuck in that job for 6 years. With the 
economic circumstances of the last 3 years, where we have seen a loss 
of 3 million private sector jobs, it isn't as if you have a tremendous 
array of jobs out there.
  What will our amendment do? Our amendment will increase the Federal 
minimum wage to $7 an hour in three steps over 2 years and 2 months. It 
would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour today to $5.85 an hour 
in 2 months, after enactment of this act, then to $6.45 in another 
year, and then to $7 a year after that. Even at that rate of $7, you 
are barely able to survive. But at least we are moving the minimum wage 
toward a more livable wage.
  Let me talk about California. My State stepped out and looked at the 
Federal minimum wage and said: This cannot be. This will not work in 
our State, where the rental costs are so high; where the food costs, 
even though we are the breadbasket of the world, are high; where the 
cost of transit is high. So in my State, the minimum wage today is 
$6.75.
  The States cannot do it alone. The Federal Government has to set the 
standard of compassion and fairness and make work an honorable 
endeavor.
  The best social program is a job. I agree with that. I would much 
prefer that people work than not. But work has to be rewarded. You may 
ask: Senator Boxer, why does this bill matter since your State has a 
higher minimum wage of $6.75? It is very clear. The Federal Government 
sets the floor for workers everywhere, and it is a guide to all States, 
including my State. Even a small increase to $7 will help 393,000 
workers in California, if California keeps the minimum wage at $6.75.
  Raising the minimum wage helps many more low-wage workers than just 
those earning the minimum wage because it does set the standard. You 
have heard that many cities and counties all over the country are 
casting what they call ``livable wages,'' because they are looking at a 
minimum wage and realizing that it is really a sub-minimum wage; it 
isn't going to really work. Why not have a minimum wage that we can be 
proud of here? That is what Senator Kennedy and I are trying to do 
today.
  Let's look at what has happened in the area of poverty in our 
country. The poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent in America in 2002, from 
11.7 percent in 2001. So this administration's economic policies, which 
caused the loss of so many private sector jobs, has seen an increase in 
poverty. And 1.7 million people have been added to the ranks of the 
poor, including many women and many children. You can be a 
compassionate conservative, a compassionate progressive, or a 
compassionate liberal, or anything you want to call yourself. 
Compassion is the name of the game. It will help our country. I will 
talk about that in a minute.
  Let's look at what else has happened. First, you have 12.1 million 
children living in poverty today. In 2002, 34.6 million Americans were 
living in poverty. Think about that. I have 35 million people in my 
State, and 34 million Americans were in poverty in 2002. The whole 
State of California equals the number of people who were in poverty. 
That is an enormous number. My State, if it were a nation, would be the 
fifth largest in terms of its GDP. Imagine if every person in my State 
were in poverty. That is what we have. So we have 12 million children 
in poverty.
  Let's look at something else. For the first time in many years, 
working Americans' wage growth is almost stagnant, while during the 
last term of the Clinton administration those wages grew. So what am I 
saying to you? We have seen an increase in poverty among women and 
children and families, we have seen an increase in the poverty rate, 
and we see wage growth that is almost stagnant.
  From the end of 1996 to the end of 2000, full-time workers saw their 
usual weekly earnings grow faster than inflation, and those gains in 
real wages were evident for both higher and lower wage workers. In 
fact, the lowest earning 10 percent of the workers saw their wages 
increase 2 percent greater than inflation. So before the Bush 
administration, we saw this wonderful real wage growth--wages that were 
going up faster than inflation. In contrast, from the end of 2000 until 
the end of 2003, real weekly earnings for working-class Americans 
stagnated. The lowest 10 percent of American workers have seen their 
wages go up by 0.2 percent; whereas, before, they went up 2.1 percent. 
Now it is 0.2 percent. So people are working harder and they are just 
not getting ahead at all.
  Again, whether we call ourselves conservatives, moderates, or 
liberals, that doesn't matter to me. I just think the word 
``compassion'' comes into it. Also, a word that has to come into this--
or two words--are ``smart policy.'' Why is it smart policy? I will get 
into that.
  One of the arguments you hear against raising the minimum wage--and 
you hear it every time--is don't raise the minimum wage because it is 
going to hurt employers. We have heard that since the very first day I 
was working in a minimum-wage job at 50 cents an hour. What if Congress 
in the past decided to just hold firm at 50 cents an hour? I am sure 
Senator Kennedy heard the same arguments all those years ago, when 
people came to the floor and said 50 cents an hour is enough, and don't 
raise the minimum wage because it will be a burden to employers.
  The truth is that we have seen in the history of the greatest country 
in the world, when you raise the minimum wage, everyone does better. 
Workers perform better. They are more productive. Business does better. 
They are more productive. Their profit margins go up. So let us not 
hear the same old,

[[Page S3338]]

same old, same old words from the past that, oh, it is a burden on 
everyone. No, it has proven to be an economic stimulus.
  There is another theory I would like to test with my colleagues who 
have supported tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. If you are a 
millionaire, you are going to get back $120,000 a year. Think about 
that, folks. If you are a millionaire, under the Bush tax cut, you will 
get a cut in taxes of $120,000 a year. A minimum-wage earner today, 
working full time, 8 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, earns $10,800 a 
year. So my calculation is that this year's tax cut for millionaires is 
11 times the yearly income of a full-time minimum-wage worker.
  What are we doing? Why are we here? I admire the folks in the upper 
income brackets, and I happen to know a lot of them in California. Do 
you know what they say to me? They say: Senator, you make sure everyone 
is brought along. When everybody is brought along, we do better. First, 
we feel better about ourselves and our country, but we do better. Why 
do we do better? Because the people who will get this increase--the $7 
an hour--are going to spend that money in the economy. It is a no-
brainer.
  My colleagues can make every argument about how giving back $120,000 
a year to the wealthiest among us will stimulate the economy. They call 
it ``trickle down.'' They love trickle down when it applies to the 
wealthy. Oh, give it to the wealthy; they will go out and spend it. The 
fact is, the wealthiest people already have the refrigerator or two; 
they already have the two homes or three; they already have the yachts. 
They already have what they need. They are not going to go out and 
spend it. They probably will sock it away.
  The bottom line is, when a worker gets another couple of bucks in his 
pocket and has to support his or her family, they will go to the store 
on the corner and spend the money, and it is going to give a boost to 
this economy. So let us not say that trickle down only works when you 
give to the rich. Let's also admit that the fact is, when you give to 
the middle class--and that is what I support, middle-class tax cuts and 
tax cuts to the working poor--you are really going to drive consumer 
spending. We know that low-income workers and moderate-income workers 
put their earnings right back into this economy, and they don't even 
have time to think about it because they have to buy clothes for the 
kids and food for the table. They will spend 100 percent of that 
increase; whereas, the wealthier taxpayers are unlikely to put that 
windfall back into the consumer-driven economy.
  To just sum up my remarks--and I know the Senator from Massachusetts 
is going to add mightily to these arguments--let me say this. We are 
doing a welfare bill. Everybody wants to see people get off welfare and 
go to work. Every one of us should also want to make sure that when 
people get into the workforce and they work hard, their work is 
rewarded, their work means something, and they won't be stuck in 
poverty forever if they are stuck in a minimum-wage job.
  Let us show not only our compassion, let us show our respect for 
work; let us show our understanding of economics.
  I have a degree in economics. Granted, it was a long time ago. I was 
a stockbroker and it was a long time ago.
  I know when you put money in the hands of people who need to spend 
it, it is going right back into the economy. This particular amendment 
has all the attributes we should all want to see. It will be a stimulus 
to the economy. It will get people out of poverty. It will set a 
standard for the rest of the States. It is fair, it is overdue, and the 
time is now.
  I commend my colleague from Massachusetts. This is his initiative. He 
knows how much I care about this issue and is willing to share it with 
me. I am so honored to have my name associated with this amendment. I 
am very hopeful we can come together today and adopt it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, there is no doubt we are going to 
have a vote on minimum wage sometime, maybe on this bill or at least on 
some other bill. It is one thing to ask for an agreement to vote on a 
nongermane amendment--the majority party has the responsibility of 
getting work done, although we are cognizant of the fact we do not get 
anything done in this body if it is not bipartisan. We want to move 
this legislation along because it is so important to moving people out 
of poverty.
  As I said yesterday, some are on the edge of society, out of sight 
and out of mind, if they are on welfare. They are never going to move 
out of poverty if they are on welfare.
  As I said yesterday, and the Senator from Massachusetts misunderstood 
me, if you are ever going to move out of poverty, you have to be in the 
world of work. Being in the world of work does not automatically, even 
with an increase in the minimum wage, guarantee you are going to be out 
of poverty, but at least you have a chance of moving out of poverty; 
whereas on welfare you are destined to a lifetime of poverty.
  We are interested in moving this legislation along, and it would help 
a little bit reaching some understanding of voting on these amendments 
if we knew we were going to get this bill done and help the people who 
need to be helped.
  The point I want to make in regard to this amendment, and it is also 
in conjunction with the offering of nongermane amendments on other 
bills I have had before this Senate by the other party, is it seems to 
me they are always missing the point. They are always getting the cart 
before the horse.

  The bill before the Senate 2 weeks ago was a bipartisan bill that 
Senator Baucus and I worked out. It came out of our committee with all 
the Democrats supporting it. It encourages the creation of jobs in 
manufacturing by reducing the tax on manufacturing because that high 
tax on manufacturing is a disincentive to the creation of jobs. And it 
happens to be an incentive to outsourcing of jobs.
  Also, because there is a tariff against some of our products going 
into Europe, this would eliminate that tariff so we could be 
competitive. OK, that legislation is a bipartisan approach to creating 
jobs in manufacturing. So what does the other party do? They offer an 
amendment dealing with overtime regulations.
  They get the cart before the horse because the first thing we have to 
do is create jobs for people to get overtime. That legislation stalled 
because of nongermane amendments.
  Now we have what is a legitimate subject of discussion--but somewhere 
else--increasing the minimum wage. That has been a legitimate point of 
discussion since the 1920s, and it has been the law in this country 
since 1938. Nobody denies that is a worthy subject of discussion. 
Again, another example of getting the cart before the horse is that we 
are talking about getting people who are on welfare, not working, a 
job. Let's get them in the world of work.
  We have Members on the other side of the aisle stalling this 
legislation with nongermane amendments.
  We have to put the priorities where the priorities ought to be: to 
help people get jobs and keep jobs so that all these other issues that 
are coming up will be applicable to more workers.
  I am going to address for a short time this issue of the situation of 
people on welfare and our opportunities to move them to work to 
emphasize the success of that program in the legislation we have had on 
the books since 1996 and to see if we cannot improve that legislation 
in the bill that is before the Senate and move forward with another 8 
years of success of moving people from welfare to work, giving them an 
opportunity to move up the economic ladder.
  The families who go on welfare are, obviously, very vulnerable and 
fragile families. They not only need a job, but they need support in 
moving from welfare to work. We are not going to dump them out in the 
cold cruel world of work. Legislation that is already on the books and 
is going to be improved by this bill is going to enhance their support. 
We have already demonstrated that with one overwhelming vote on more 
money for childcare. I have heard that a long time from that side of 
the aisle, as we have heard from a lot of Republicans. One would think 
they would want to pass this legislation to give people on welfare who 
are moving

[[Page S3339]]

into work the support they need to get there. This legislation does it. 
But the shenanigans on the other side with nongermane amendments are 
holding that up.
  The average family on welfare has two children, and that average 
family is headed by a young woman. Most of these families are African 
American or Hispanic. Half of these families have a child under the age 
of 6, and we take into consideration in this legislation specific needs 
of families with children under 6.
  The women who head these families are desperately poor. That is what 
welfare does for people, it keeps them in poverty. These women who have 
these families, besides being desperately poor and, contrary to the way 
the argument over minimum wage was characterized, they are not working. 
That is why it is so important to get this legislation passed before 
you worry about minimum wage because we have to give them the support 
so they can get out there in the world of work so they can get the 
minimum wage in the first place.
  States are reporting to us that the majority of adults on welfare are 
not doing anything. In other words, they are not working and maybe not 
doing anything that will lead to work, as we are trying to help them do 
through this infrastructure of support, of helping with job training 
and education, with substance abuse and other problems families might 
have because it is quite obvious in the world of welfare, it is not a 
way to achieve self-sufficiency. Many of these adult recipients are not 
ready for full-time work, so discussions about working 40 hours do not 
really apply to this population. In fact, for a while the argument over 
welfare reform focused on President Bush's proposal to require adult 
recipients on welfare to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours a 
week. That outraged my Democratic colleagues, that the administration 
would propose raising the hours of activity, including work, to 40 
hours. Just as if out there in the world of work it isn't assumed, not 
anything less than 40 hours a week, for the most part. So it is 
somewhat ironic that we are here discussing a 40-hour work week 
scenario because, as I said, most of these adults on welfare are not 
working at all and if they are working they are surely not working full 
time.

  These are adults, and again they are mainly women, with multiple and 
often coexisting barriers to work. They may be the victims of domestic 
abuse. They may have substance abuse problems. Add all that together 
and you have people who need services that this legislation provides to 
get them ready to go to work. So you worry about this person. Are they 
getting a minimum wage at this level or at that level? That is why this 
discussion over minimum wage is just a little confusing to me, as 
legitimate as it is for Congress to discuss the minimum wage, because 
we have set the minimum wage since 1938. But in connection with these 
people, they oftentimes are not earning any wage. But they are people 
who need services if they are ever going to get that job.
  I am hopeful we will be able to work something out on minimum wage, 
and that we can complete our work on this welfare bill. I think people 
on the other side of the aisle, if they could indicate to us finality 
on this legislation, there can be some accommodation. Because families 
in need are waiting for us to get this done. It is a very successful 
program that started in 1996 and we need to continue it. This 
legislation fine-tunes it; it improves it; it strengthens it. We spend 
more money to do a better job of support for people who need to go to 
work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Massachusetts, who 
would like to speak on this amendment. I will be very brief.
  The chairman of the committee is a good friend of mine. We have 
worked very closely together on most legislation. This is one bill 
where we are not working together as closely because we have somewhat 
different points of view.
  I appreciate the chairman's view that this side of the aisle is 
attempting to drag things out a little bit. The fact is, our side is 
willing to have a vote on this amendment and on other amendments. We 
will enter time agreements. There is no attempt to delay at all. In 
fact, when I was sitting here yesterday I think the Senator from 
Massachusetts suggested 20 minutes for a time agreement. That is, he 
would agree to a vote in 20 minutes. I am not going to put words in the 
mouth of the good Senator as to how many minutes he would like in the 
time agreement now, but the point is we are willing to have votes and 
to vote very quickly on all these amendments. We are not holding up 
anything.
  It is also interesting to note when this welfare reform bill came up 
for debate in 1995, there were 40 recorded votes on the floor. I think 
we have had one thus far in the reauthorization debate. I think better 
legislation results when amendments are offered, when they are debated, 
and when they are voted on. This way, Senators can decide whether they 
want to vote for or against a particular amendment.
  The Senator from Iowa and myself work very closely, as I said. But I 
want to make the record clear that there is nobody on this side holding 
up passage of this bill in any way. We are willing to enter into time 
agreements on any amendments that may be offered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first I thank my good friend from 
California, Senator Boxer, for offering this amendment. It is one I 
feel strongly about and support strongly. I thank our ranking leader on 
the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his support. I will make a 
brief comment to my friend, and he is my friend, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, about his concerns and objections to considering the 
minimum-wage increase on this bill that is an attempt to move people 
off welfare into work.
  In reviewing the legislation that is before us, I would like to 
direct the chairman and those Members of the Senate who feel this 
amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill, page 4 of the 
committee's report where we have the Secretary, Tommy Thompson, talking 
about:

       The most humane social program is a healthy and independent 
     family that has a capacity and ability to have a good, paying 
     job.

  This is the Secretary of HHS testifying in favor of the overall 
legislation. He is talking about having a good-paying job.
  We know a minimum wage job today is not a good-paying job. The Boxer-
Kennedy amendment will make it closer to a good-paying job.
  Then it continues, on page 12, the reason for change:

       The Committee bill provides for States to continue their 
     successful efforts to move welfare recipients into good 
     jobs.

  What are good jobs? The minimum wage jobs at $5.15 or the jobs at $7 
an hour? States have directed considerable resources into moving 
welfare recipients into meaningful employment. That is what we are 
talking about, meaningful employment. This is what the Secretary of HHS 
said. This is the reason for change in the committee bill. That is what 
it is all about.
  Then continue on to page 21:

       The Committee bill recognizes the success received by TANF 
     and the Work First programs are a result of a sustained 
     emphasis on adult attachment to the workforce.

  ``Attachment to the workforce'' means having a paycheck, a decent 
job.
  I believe this legislation is directly relevant to the underlying 
theme of the legislation. But I say to my friend from Iowa, if he wants 
to give me a time agreement on a separate bill and give us the 
assurance we will be able to consider it by the first of May, as an 
independent bill here on the floor of the Senate, with a time limit, I 
would be glad to urge my friend and colleague from California to 
withdraw the amendment and take that, if that is agreeable to the 
Senator. We are not trying to hold the bill down.
  I will propose a time limit on my amendment. It is now 10 after 3. I 
propose unanimous consent that we vote on this amendment at 3:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is in another 20 minutes. The point has been made 
about how this legislation is slowing

[[Page S3340]]

the bill down. We indicated we are prepared to vote, at least in 20 
minutes, on this legislation. We were prepared yesterday to vote on it. 
The problem is, it has been now 7 years, 7 years where we have been 
denied the right to vote on it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sure the Senator would be happy to agree to a 5-
minute limit. The Senator from Iowa gets up and says this is a noble 
thing to raise the minimum wage, but you are holding up the welfare 
bill.
  We will vote on this in 60 seconds from now. The American people are 
for this. Does my friend agree the American people are fairminded and 
for this?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. The American people understand 
fairness. They believe if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the 
year, you should not have to live in poverty in the richest country in 
the world. The American people understand that is basically what we are 
talking about, fairness and respect for people who are doing a day's 
work. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of an increase in 
the minimum wage, and for actually a good deal higher wage than the one 
we are proposing.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will my friend yield for another question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. We are charged with giving pay increases to the Federal 
workforce. We do it every year, do we not?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Our colleagues accept it. I do not know of anyone who 
does not accept the automatic adjustment in their pay.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator not think it is an outrage? We work hard 
and we make a decent living. We get an automatic cost-of-living 
adjustment unless we stop it. Yet the same people who take a cost-of-
living adjustment for themselves won't give a small increase to the 
people at the bottom of the ladder who are trying so hard to make 
something of themselves and rise above problems, illness, and poverty--
sometimes for generations--and want to be able to get into the 
workforce.
  My colleague says Tommy Thompson says it is important that these be 
good jobs. I wonder if any of our colleagues could live on $10,800 a 
year. I do not think they could. I do not think so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for her comments.
  I want to point out a few facts on the increase in the minimum wage.
  This is the second longest period in the history of the minimum wage 
that Congress has ignored the plight of low-wage earners. The first 
time President Bush signed a minimum wage increase was in 1989. That 
was after 12 years of inaction. It has been 7 years since the last 
increase. It is long past time for Congress to prioritize the lowest 
workers.
  Let me give you a chart that makes the point which the Senator from 
California and I have tried to make over a period of time in this 
debate. Here we have people who are working hard but losing ground with 
the real value of the minimum wage. If we were to take effectively the 
year 2000 and use that as the equivalent, the minimum wage in 1966 
would have been $8.50. Even though now at $5.15 an hour, its purchasing 
power using 2000 dollars would be $4.98, which would be one the lowest 
levels it has been in the history of the minimum wage unless we 
increase it. Even going up to $7, it will still be lower than it was 
from 1968 until 1980, a period of some 12 years. This is a very modest 
increase without which we will reach the bottom in terms of real 
purchasing power.
  Let us take another indicator in terms of what the minimum wage is in 
relationship to a family of three. This is the red line representing 
what the poverty line has been, and that is for a family of three 
earning slightly below $16,000. This is the poverty. This represents 
the value of the minimum wage which we show for a family of three--well 
below the poverty line.
  Let us ask ourselves, What about those people receiving the minimum 
wage? Are they working? If we go from 1979 to the year 2000 and look at 
the minimum wage--this is the bottom 40 percent of U.S. family income--
we find these workers in the bottom 40 percent are working more than 
400 hours. The average worker in this country is working longer than 
any other industrial nation in the world. These are hard-working people 
who are trying to make do the best they can.

  We find African Americans are working even longer and harder. 
Hispanics are working even longer and harder. These are minimum wage 
workers in the bottom percentile. They are working long and working 
hard trying to make ends meet. And they can't do it.
  We have seen over the period of the last 3 years the increase in the 
number of people who are living in poverty. It was 31 million in the 
year 2000. In 2002, it is more than 34 million. There is a direct 
result of this administration's economic policy. Three million more 
Americans are living in poverty. That represents today more than 34 
million people living in poverty, including 12 million children. More 
than 400,000 children today are living in poverty compared to the year 
2000. We have had no increase in the minimum wage. We are trying to do 
something about it.
  This bill does nothing in terms of raising the income of some of 
these families. This proposal will make a difference in terms of 
income.
  We will probably have those come on the floor as they usually do and 
say, Senator, this is very interesting, but we know if we raise the 
minimum wage we are going to see the result of increasing unemployment. 
There will be two reasons in opposition. I have been debating minimum 
wage increases since I have been in the Senate. These are the two 
standard ones.
  First they say if you raise the minimum wage, we will see an increase 
in unemployment. That is not true. We can show it. I will reference the 
figures.
  Second, the last issue is inflation. I will address that quickly 
because I want to get to the real issue; that is, what is happening to 
these families who are living in poverty. That is the real issue; 
particularly what is happening to the children who are living in 
poverty.
  That is the real issue. What is happening to them in terms of hunger 
is the real issue. Let us get rid of these issues quickly; that is, 
increasing the minimum wage does not cause unemployment. We increased 
it in September 1996, and we increased it in 1997.
  This red column is where unemployment was in January of 1998. That is 
obviously almost 2 years after the increase in 1996 and a few months 
after the increase in 1997. These are fairly significant figures in 
terms of unemployment.
  Look at the national figure--5.2 percent in 1996, 4.7 percent in 
1997, and 4.7 in 1998. That is exactly the same 4.7 percent. That is 
after the last increase in the minimum wage.
  It was true among African Americans.
  You will hear the argument: That is fine, generally, but the Senator 
and Senator Boxer don't understand this has a particular adverse impact 
on African Americans. That is not true. This chart shows, looking back 
to 1996 and the last major increases, unemployment virtually remained 
stable. That is true with regard to the Hispanics and it is true with 
regard to teens. Let us dismiss that argument in terms of unemployment.
  The other issue they will raise is, Well, this increase in the 
minimum wage is going to be an inflator in terms of our economy.
  Listen to this: This increase in the minimum wage represents less 
than one-fifth of 1 percent of wages of all workers in the country. 
Inflator? I hope they are going to have a better argument than that. 
They can't make the argument, although they will try. They will say: 
Add that increase to minimum wage and you will get inflation; and, 
think of all the people who will pay with inflation. You will increase 
unemployment among minorities. All of those arguments have been 
answered in spades. There is no economic argument in opposition to this 
unless you are trying to squeeze these workers even harder in order to 
try and exploit them even further.

  I will point out the real issue and its impact on the most vulnerable 
population. We know today that America's children are more likely to 
live in poverty than Americans in any other age

[[Page S3341]]

group. The U.S. child poverty rate is substantially higher, two to 
three times higher, than that of most other major western industrial 
nations. Isn't that a fine situation?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be happy to yield. After 5 or 6 minutes more of 
my presentation, I will be glad to yield for questions.
  The child poverty rate is substantially higher, two to three times 
higher than most other western industrial nations. Reducing child 
poverty is one of the best investments Americans can make in their 
Nation's future.
  More children will enter school ready to learn; we will have more 
successful schools; there will be fewer school dropouts; we will have 
better child health with less strain on the hospitals and public health 
systems; we will have less stress on the juvenile justice system; we 
will have less child hunger and malnutrition.
  The fact is, the number of children living in poverty and the number 
of children going hungry every single day has increased significantly 
over the period of the last 3 years.
  The bottom line is, 3 million children have parents who would benefit 
from a minimum wage increase. We have an opportunity to do something 
about the 12 million American children living in poverty and the 
400,000 children more living in poverty today than were living in 
poverty 2 years ago. We can make a difference because so many of these 
children are living in families with minimum wage earnings. That is the 
issue.
  We hear the arguments on the other side, and we can answer those in 
terms of inflation and unemployment. Those questions have been 
answered. I will not take the time unless we are challenged on the 
issues, including historical unemployment figures and all the rest.
  This is about children. It is about women. As I mentioned, and then I 
will yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, this issue is about women 
because 61 percent of those who earn the minimum wage are women. It is 
about children. We know that 3 million children live in families whose 
parent is working in a minimum wage job. So it is about women and 
children. It is about civil rights because a great number of these 
minimum wage workers are men and women of color. It is about fairness 
because Americans understand if you want to work 40 hours a week and 
can work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you should not have to live 
in poverty. Americans understand that.
  The final point I make, these minimum wage workers are men and women 
of dignity and pride. Too often around here we say: Minimum wage 
workers, we have other things to do. These are some of the hardest 
working, most decent men and women we have in this country, who take a 
sense of pride in the work they do, which is menial, tough, repetitive 
work--cleaning out the buildings of American industry, also working as 
assistants to teachers, working in nursing homes, looking after the 
elderly people of this country. This is hard, difficult, challenging 
work, but they take a sense of pride in it.

  We have refused to increase the minimum wage now for 7 years. As I 
have pointed out, this chart shows the history of the increases in the 
minimum wage. It is not a partisan matter. Going back to 1938, we have 
the increases under President Roosevelt and President Truman. President 
Eisenhower increased the minimum wage in 1955. President Kennedy did in 
1961; Lyndon Johnson in 1966; President Ford did it in 1974 three 
different times, for 1974, 1975, and 1976. President Ford, a 
Republican, did it. President Carter, in 1977; President Bush I did it 
in 1989; President Clinton in 1996.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. That is why it is so difficult for 
many to understand why those on the other side have refused the 
opportunity to even get a vote. I welcome the chance that we will have 
this time to get a vote.
  I point out, and then I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
what moving up to $7 an hour means to a family earning the minimum 
wage. It is the equivalent of 2 years of childcare. It is more than 2 
years of health care for that family. It is full tuition for a 
community college degree. It is a year and a half of heat and 
electricity. It is more than a year of groceries, and more than 9 
months of rent. It is real money for real people who are working hard, 
playing by the rules, and are waiting for this body to take some 
action.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
makes an important point about what we should be doing to reduce 
poverty.
  The Senator from Massachusetts made statements that increasing the 
minimum wage has an impact on child poverty. I have not seen a chart 
that indicates that. If the Senator could put up the chart when the 
minimum wage increases went into effect, my question is--we are on the 
welfare reform bill. This welfare reform bill has had a dramatic impact 
on child poverty. In fact, if you look at the chart, it shows the 
increases in the minimum wage--I will have a chart that compares with 
that; we have dueling charts that work in concert. The Senator shows 
where the minimum wage was at very high levels that happened to be in 
about this area. I am using Black child poverty, but obviously that is 
the worst case scenario. During the highest level of poverty among 
African Americans, we had a high minimum wage.
  All throughout this time--in fact, as you suggested, the minimum wage 
actually came down in real value--what else came down? The rate of 
Black child poverty.
  Now, I would not suggest that the minimum wage was necessarily tied 
to that. What I would suggest is what happened was a fundamental change 
in welfare policy that started in the mid-1990s and accelerated in 1996 
by the Federal Government and has resulted in a huge decline in 
poverty, irrespective of what the minimum wage is.
  I make the argument that if the Senator wants to do something about 
helping child poverty, we should pass this welfare bill. Maybe there is 
a time and place to have the argument with respect to minimum wage, but 
I do not believe the evidence supports that increasing the minimum wage 
has any discernible impact on the poverty level, certainly among 
African American children and, I argue, across the board among children 
in general.

  Finally, the point I want to make, since----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is that a question? I am about to yield the floor 
generally, if you could get to the question. What is the question? I 
would be glad to answer.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. I want to make the point in the 
last 10 years, the child poverty rate has declined almost 30 percent. 
During that time there was one increase in the minimum wage, but there 
was a dramatic change in welfare.
  I ask the Senator, does he have any information that shows that the 
minimum wage actually does result in a decrease in child poverty? I 
think I have very conclusive evidence that changes in welfare policy 
have a dramatic impact on the reductions in child poverty.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the fact is self-evident and should be to 
all Members. We do not need charts. If you are making $5.50 an hour and 
you are the principal bread winner in the family with a child, that 
child will live in poverty. You can have all the charts in the world, 
but that is self-evident. That ought to be a given.
  We do not have to dispute that. I hope we would not have to dispute 
that. Those are the hard, difficult facts.
  The issues about the variance in terms of child poverty, obviously, 
when we have the dramatic expansion as during the period of the 1990s 
under President Clinton, we saw the creation of 22 million jobs. We saw 
that spill over into a reduction of child poverty. That is the answer. 
The fact is we have not seen that.

  In the last 3 years, we have seen a growth in poverty in the total 
number of people who are living in poverty, including children, because 
we have lost 3 million jobs--effectively maybe 2 million overall--but 2 
million jobs. The fact is, the new jobs that are being created are 
paying about 25 percent less than those they are replacing.
  With all respect to the Senator, the idea that at $5.15 an hour when 
you have a child or two children they are not going to be living in 
poverty escapes me completely. I do not think we

[[Page S3342]]

need any chart to show that. That is fairly self-evident.
  I do not know what the situation is in Pennsylvania, but I do know in 
the other States I have visited in recent times, people cannot make it. 
At $5.15 an hour, how is a parent going to be able to go out and rent 
an apartment and provide food for their children? That does not make 
sense.
  The fact is, almost half of the new jobs that were being created for 
those who have moved off welfare now have disappeared. That is a 
different issue, and we could debate that, and I would be glad to. That 
is not what this amendment is about.
  This amendment is relevant to the underlying issue. As I have raised 
before with Secretary Thompson, the purpose of this bill is to try to 
get people into somewhat decent jobs.
  We raised this over 2\1/2\ years, up to $7 an hour, almost a living 
wage. We think in this country, at this time, this is something that is 
called for, and we are prepared to move ahead with it.
  I see the manager on this bill. We can either take some more time or 
we can try to move toward whatever outcome the floor managers would 
want. If we want some additional debate on it, we are glad to do so. 
But if you want to move toward a conclusion of it, we are glad to do so 
as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts 
is insincere about moving forward on both this minimum wage increase as 
well as moving forward on this bill. I will offer a unanimous consent 
request to do just that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow morning, at a 
time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with 
the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to back-to-back votes, first 
in relation to a Republican minimum wage amendment, to be followed by a 
vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, with no second degrees in 
order to either amendment; provided further that the bill then be 
limited to germane amendments, and at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 1, 
the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, 
and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no 
intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask consent that following 
passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Before the Senator from Massachusetts comments on this request, I 
would suggest what this unanimous consent request says is the Senator 
from Massachusetts will have a vote on his amendment, the Republicans 
will have a vote on a side-by-side amendment, we will go to final 
passage on this bill, with germane amendments being offered and voted 
on in between that time; and after passage of the bill, this bill will 
go to conference, and we will have an opportunity for the House and the 
Senate to work their will and to actually get this welfare 
reauthorization passed for another 6-year period.
  So if the Senator from Massachusetts is sincere about getting the 
minimum wage increase voted on here in the Senate, and not holding up 
this piece of legislation, I would hope he would be willing to accept 
this unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for commenting on my 
sincerity because I indicated yesterday I was interested in a 15-minute 
time limitation on this amendment, and it was objected to by the 
Senator from Iowa. We indicated we were willing to vote at 3:30 today, 
and it was objected to.
  So now the Senator, if he wants to amend that request--since these 
are directly related to the issues of employment--to include an 
amendment with a 1-hour time limitation on the issue of overtime, an 
amendment with a 1-hour time limitation in terms of unemployment 
compensation, and then to have relevant amendments and time limitations 
on those amendments of up to an hour, I would not object to that.
  So, Mr. President, I object, and I offer a unanimous consent request 
along the lines I mentioned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the modified unanimous consent request of the 
Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think it goes to state the case that 
the Senator from Massachusetts, in offering these other ideas, is in 
fact not interested in the Senate working its will on welfare reform, 
which is the bill before us, but bringing the political motives and 
debates that are surrounding the Presidential campaigns here on the 
floor of the Senate, and to have sort of ``message theme'' amendments 
on a very serious piece of legislation that needs to be passed to 
create opportunities so this line on this chart can continue to go 
down.

  Because what we have with the welfare reform reauthorization bill is 
something that is going to continue to move people out of poverty, to 
create better opportunities for work. What the Senator from 
Massachusetts is suggesting is, instead of that, we are going to extend 
unemployment benefits. What we need to do is create better incentives 
and better education, training, and an enormous amount of childcare to 
help people go to work, not extend unemployment benefits.
  Again, we are in this situation where the Senator from Massachusetts 
said: Well, if we just do this. Now it is: Well, you need to do this, 
and this, and then this. The bottom line is, we have a lot of 
substantive debate that can and should occur on this legislation. If 
there are relevant amendments, we would be happy to debate them. But 
the amendments the Senator from Massachusetts now wants to bring in are 
not relevant, and, therefore, I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes 
talking about this bill and the importance of why we need to move to 
the passage of it.
  The Senator put up his chart of minimum wage increases. I voted for 
those minimum wage increases. I would vote for a minimum wage increase 
in the next 10 minutes if we could have gotten that agreement. I would 
have been happy to vote on a side by side, and I would have supported 
Senator McConnell's amendment, which would have raised the minimum 
wage, and would have raised it by over a dollar over the next couple of 
years.
  I think it is important that we talk about this issue. But I think 
the most important thing we can do for the poor in America--and I found 
it remarkable the Senator from Massachusetts can look at his chart, 
that shows the minimum wage at very high levels in real dollars, during 
a time when child poverty, and particularly African-American poverty, 
has been at its highest and he says it only makes sense if you have 
high minimum wage, you are going to have low poverty rates.
  Tell the people living during this time who were experiencing high 
poverty rates how much sense it made. Because in reality it made no 
sense because it was not happening. A high minimum wage does not 
guarantee low poverty. What, in many cases, a high minimum wage 
guarantees is unemployment and very high rates of poverty.
  What we have is a situation where we had higher rates of the minimum 
wage. We also had a welfare system that was debilitating on the poor, 
designed by the very same people who think the minimum wage is the 
answer to poverty.
  It is the same economic team, folks, which believes Government 
micromanaging of every person's life and business in America is the way 
to make sure everybody achieves. Guess what. It did not work. It did 
not work. What worked? Work. Yes, what every American knows. But there 
is a commonsense deficit in this city. What every American knows, as 
common sense, that work works to improve people's economic status in 
life, has been lost here in the Senate, was lost for many years when it 
came to the issue of poverty in America.
  And, oh, I remember, sitting in the chair where Senator Grassley sits 
today, and sitting in this chair at times in 1995 and 1996, when scores 
of

[[Page S3343]]

Members who designed the welfare system in the 1960s and 1970s, who 
designed the minimum wage increases in the 1960s and 1970s, who said 
that was the answer to solving poverty in America, that was the answer 
to solving poverty in America, came to the floor and said: How dare 
you. How dare you suggest we require people to work. How dare you 
suggest we put a time limit--a time limit--on people on welfare. Don't 
you understand? These people are poor. That is a disability greater 
than any other disability people encounter in life--at least if you 
listen to the other side, that is what you would think they were 
saying.
  President Bush uses the term ``the soft bigotry of low 
expectations.'' There was no soft bigotry. This was hard bigotry of low 
expectations. If you were poor, you needed our help, you needed 
Government to give you dollars, you needed Government to raise your 
wages. And that was going to solve the poverty problems in America. It 
did not work. What worked? Work.

  Here we are in the Senate Chamber. I find it absolutely ironic. We 
have Senator Grassley standing up for the new war on poverty, his bill 
out of committee, increasing the work requirement, yes, increasing 
support for women who are trying to get work, including daycare and 
other services. On the other side we have, no, we need the Government 
to fix the economy and raise the minimum wage. It is a classic 
difference in the perspective of what the role of Government should be. 
We stand here today and say, you can debate all you want about the 
minimum wage. I am not suggesting it is a bad thing, but it is not a 
panacea. It bears no relationship historically to reductions in 
poverty. Why? Because most of the people who get the minimum wage jobs, 
as the Senator from Iowa said, in the past are not heads of households; 
they are teenagers, many of whom are in very wealthy homes. That is who 
we are helping with minimum wage increases primarily. We are helping 
some others, but if you really want to help those who have not had the 
chances economically, if you really want to lift people out of poverty, 
then work and developing and nurturing a system that encourages people 
to get their lives together and to get into the workplace to achieve is 
the answer. That is what this bill does, and more.
  That is why I am so excited about this bill because we have found out 
that, yes, work works. This is the lowest rate of African-American 
child poverty ever recorded in America. By the way, in the last year, 
2002 and 2003, yes, because of the recession, black poverty among 
children went up, but very slightly, 1 or 2 percent, during a time of a 
lot of job loss.
  If you look at the other statistics, for example, one that probably 
mirrors this, as far as high rates of poverty, had to do with single 
mothers never married. What we saw was single mothers never married, 
historically the rate of employment among single never-married mothers 
was around 40 to 42 percent historically. It was an intractable problem 
that people said could never be fixed. Then we passed the welfare 
reform bill in 1996. Now 63 percent of single, never-married mothers 
are employed.
  That is remarkable to see those kinds of dynamic shifts. By the way, 
that number has not changed in the last 2 years. The employment levels 
have remained the same as they have basically within the welfare 
system.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has said things have been terrible the 
last few years in the job market and people in poverty have been hurt. 
The bottom line is, the welfare rolls continue to be low. They have not 
shot back up.
  In fact, I was reading an editorial from a paper I generally don't 
read editorials from, my hometown paper--not necessarily fond of me. 
They happened to write a lucid editorial, sort of the blind squirrel 
phenomenon. They wrote an editorial in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 
``Shrinking Welfare, the Statistical Mystery of a Smaller Dole.'' They 
comment on the fact that here we are, during 3 years where there has 
not been dramatic job growth, and yet the welfare rolls are not going 
back. They were sort of at a quandary as to why.
  They say: Although welfare reform still has problems, single mothers 
often have considerable difficulty obtaining childcare--after we passed 
now $7 billion; we have over doubled the amount of daycare that is 
going to be available under this bill--these numbers suggest it is 
working.
  The numbers suggest welfare is working. For whatever reason--gosh, I 
can't imagine; it is again another commonsense deficit--more people are 
trying to do for themselves instead of asking government to do for 
them.
  Go figure. Let me repeat this. For whatever reason, more people are 
trying to do for themselves instead of asking government to do for 
them. Even if the experts can't explain it, they conclude that is a 
good thing.
  Do you know what. That is a good thing, what we did in 1996, despite 
the protestations, despite the charts with pictures of people standing 
in bread lines, sleeping on grates, of just absolutely cataclysmic 
predictions of what would happen to rates of poverty, which were around 
this level at the time, we had projections that black poverty among 
children would skyrocket, that women would be thrown off welfare and 
not be able to raise their children, that we would have dramatic 
changes and riots in our poorest neighborhoods because of this welfare 
reform proposal that was being put forward. I will read some of my 
colleagues' predictions of what would happen to poverty.
  Guess what. They were wrong. Those of us who stood here and said, 
have faith in the poor in America that they, too, want a better life 
for themselves and their children, and they are willing to work for it, 
if given the incentives and the opportunity to do so, if given the 
tools to make work work, they, too, will pursue the American dream, we 
had faith in them. Too many others have faith only in the government to 
take care of them.
  Having talked to numerous people who have been on welfare--in fact, 
in my office in my State, I have hired nine people from the welfare 
rolls. They have worked through all the problems, and there are 
problems in someone transitioning off of welfare. I can tell you that 
every single one thanked me for having faith in them, thanked me for 
passing a bill that didn't say that we needed the government to be 
there to protect them and keep them in poverty and dependent upon it, 
but trusted them that, if given the tools, that they, too, could take 
care of their family and feel better about it every day, knowing full 
well it would be a struggle and continues to be a struggle.
  But there is honor in the struggle to provide for your family. There 
is honor. There is dignity. There is character in struggling to provide 
for you and your family.
  Millions of women--predominantly women; welfare is predominantly a 
woman's program, a single-mother program--have courageously gone out 
and fought for their families because we gave them the tools and 
incentive to do so. They have changed their lives for the better, and 
they have given their children a hope, a model that they can build a 
life on, that they can build on the success of their mother who 
overcame addiction.
  A young woman spoke to our Republican conference this morning from 
here in DC, incarcerated many times, addicted, so bad that she lost her 
three children to foster care. Then welfare reform came around, made 
her go to work. And today she has her three children back.
  She not only got a job, she now has a small business where she 
employs four people in town. She didn't do it with an SBA loan or any 
Government help at all; she saved a little money and started her own 
business. In the last 6 months, she got married. You have to believe in 
people. You have to believe that poverty is not the ultimate disabler.
  That is why this bill is so important. That is why this bill has to 
be passed, because we have 28 States right now, where all of the 
requirements that we have put on the States to have work programs, to 
get people transitioned off of the rolls, to provide the support 
services to transition people into the economic mainstream in 28 
States--that incentive is now gone. So in 28 States in America, we are 
back to the old AFDC days. That will have an impact.
  Let me tell you what one of the reasons is I am so excited about this 
bill. It is the next step in welfare. We knew--those of us who helped 
design

[[Page S3344]]

the 1996 act--this was the first step, that work was the most important 
thing. There were other important things, but we understood work was 
the central focus. But there were other causes and concerns we wanted 
to deal with.
  Senator Grassley had this chart up. It is a chart by Haskins and 
Sawhill. They are from the Brookings Institute. I think even the 
Senator from Massachusetts would admit that the Brookings Institute is 
not a conservative think tank. It is seen as the left-leaning think 
tank in town--or one of them. Elizabeth Sawhill is a former Clinton 
poverty expert. Ron Haskins happens to be--I don't know how he got in 
there--he is a fairly conservative guy. We have our differences. 
Anyway, Ron and Elizabeth worked together on this. This is a peer-
reviewed study that isolates factors of poverty. This is the official 
poverty rate, 13 percent. Remember what we said back in 1996: Work 
works. You have to get people into work. That is the best cure for 
poverty, the best way to turn your life around. That is the best 
medicine for children--to see mom get up every day and go to work, 
instead of receiving a welfare check. Guess what. It works. With full-
time work, poverty rates go down to 7.5 percent.
  The other thing this bill does is understand we have to keep this 
and, in fact, improve upon it. We are going to increase the work 
requirement by 20 percent. Interestingly enough, we increased the 
amount of daycare by 100 percent. So this is, again, Washington logic. 
We are going to require people to work 20 percent more, so we need 100 
percent in daycare to pay for that. Nevertheless, there are other 
factors involved that reduce poverty.
  Marriage. The President's initiative is, again, common sense. It is 
an understanding that the poverty rates are lower among married couples 
than they are among single heads of households. So one of the things 
the President wanted to do with his marriage initiative is to create at 
least a positive or nurturing atmosphere for couples who enter the 
welfare system with the intention of getting married to actually get 
married and raise a family.
  There was a study done by a professor at Princeton that asked the 
question upon paternity establishment: Are you in a relationship? What 
I mean by paternity establishment is that most States figured out the 
best time to establish who the father of the child is is in a hospital; 
so most States have adopted that as a way of establishing who the 
father is, and then using that to get the father to pay child support. 
That was something that was a very big contentious point in the welfare 
bill of 1996. We required paternity establishment in the States, that 
they have an active program to find out who these fathers were. This 
was the whole deadbeat dad issue and the fact that there were enormous 
amounts of uncollected child support. So we did a whole lot of things 
on child support enforcement and paternity establishment because there 
was a huge number of women on welfare who either refused to, or don't, 
for whatever reason, identify the father of the child. From my 
perspective, to try to get the father involved in the child's life, I 
thought paternity establishment was going to be very important.

  The States have a different view. They saw it as a way to get cash--
establish paternity so we could get child support and we could get 
money. They were not particularly interested in whether dad did 
anything to raise the child other than to send the check so the State 
could get some of the money. They would then reduce the benefits to the 
mother in proportion to the child support being paid by the father. 
There is an incentive for the States to find out who the father was and 
attach wages, if necessary, and get the child support flowing into the 
State coffers.
  That is not exactly the most nurturing conclusion that I thought 
would occur by finding out who father was. I had this funny idea that 
maybe if they found out who the father was and the father became 
involved in a legal way with his child, he might take some 
responsibility for that child. That is not, unfortunately, what has 
happened. There are a lot of factors involved, including a culture in 
many communities that is not nurturing of fathers taking responsibility 
for their children--at least in the popular culture. In a segment of 
the popular culture, it is not reinforced that fathers should take 
responsibility for their children. It is a misogynist popular culture 
that abuses women in song, in video, and in many other ways, and 
teaches you not to take responsibility for your actions. So the popular 
culture, matched up with the State that was just interested in money, 
has resulted in incredibly high rates of absent fathers.
  What are we going to do about that? What should we do? People say, 
Senator, what is the Government's role in marriage--to encourage people 
to marry? Why doesn't the Government stay out of it? I argue that the 
Government is already in it because, prior to welfare's inception--and 
you can say this is a good or bad thing, but it is a fact--prior to 
welfare's inception, one of the reasons mothers and fathers stayed 
together was because there wasn't any money to support the child at 
all. The Government didn't help raise children at all. There was no 
money. That is when sort of a popular joke regarding the shotgun 
wedding came about, because mom had no means to support herself and her 
children. So families required fathers to stick it out.
  Many will say that was not the optimal situation. I agree. But ask 
the question now, are we better off now? Are the children better off 
now? As the Senator from Massachusetts said, it is about the children, 
isn't it? Are the children better off now in this culture?
  I would make the argument that the Federal Government has already 
done its part in taking sides on the marriage debate, and that is, it 
has been an enabler of the dissolution of marriage because it is no 
longer required to support and raise your child.
  Again, you can argue positives and negatives about it, but that is a 
fact. Economically, it simply was not possible 50 years ago. 
Economically, it is a viable option--I am not saying the best option. I 
am not saying better or worse. All I am saying is it is an option that 
was not available before. So the Government has taken sides on the 
issue of marriage.
  What I am suggesting, and what this bill suggests, is the Government 
try to shift gears to be somewhat neutral on the issue. What do I mean 
by that? A researcher from Princeton I started talking about did a 
survey asking whether mothers and fathers at the time of paternity 
establishment were in a relationship. Actually, a very high percentage 
said yes at the time. I think it was roughly 80 percent said they were 
currently in a relationship.
  They were asked the question: Do you have any intention of getting 
married? Again, a very high percentage of these young parents or new 
parents said, yes, they actually were contemplating marriage--over 50 
percent. What happened?
  By the way, what did the Government do during this time? The 
Government basically said: OK, dad, sign here, make sure you establish 
paternity. Thank you very much. Fold up that paper, put it in the 
briefcase, and back down to the welfare office. File the paper. Make 
sure we get dad a child support order so we can get our money. That is 
the Government's role financially.
  The Government says marriage is not such a bad--no, no, we are not 
going to prejudice these folks; let them do whatever they want as long 
as we get our money--as long as we get our money.
  What happened a year later? The researcher from Princeton--again, not 
a conservative researcher--asked the question a year later of these 
same couples. Guess what. Very few got married. I think 10 percent were 
still together in one form or another.
  What happened? I think it is fairly obvious what happened. It is a 
tough situation for an unmarried couple, particularly, again, given the 
popular culture. It is a very tough situation to work through the 
difficulties of raising a newborn and trying to keep a relationship 
together. Even people who are married have a tough time. A newborn is a 
big change in your life. Having had seven children, I can tell you, 
having a newborn in the house is a big change. When you are struggling 
economically, when you may be living at home or may be living in poor 
accommodations or maybe not living in the same place, this is a very 
stressful and difficult situation. People, in many cases, do not

[[Page S3345]]

have a heck of a lot of role models around to help them get through 
this difficult time in their life.
  I do not think anybody here is surprised to hear these numbers--I 
would not think they would be--that a very small percentage of people 
in this situation end up getting married. Why aren't you surprised? I 
think we need to think about that. Why were you not surprised when I 
said that? That is the expectation, is it not? That is what we expect.
  If we expect it, what do you think the people involved in the 
situation expect over time? We are trying to change that dynamic. We 
are not trying to force anything down anybody's throat. All we are 
suggesting is that at the time of paternity establishment, instead of 
folding up that little paper that now has the signature that is going 
to create financial liability for that man for at least some period of 
time, we ask one additional question: Are you interested in getting 
married?
  If both answer yes, for example, what a caseworker could do is pull 
out a card and say: Here is a card and here is a list of 10 people, 10 
organizations who do marriage counseling. If you call one of these 
organizations and you show up for an appointment, we will pay for your 
counseling to help you get through this difficult time and stressful 
time in your life.
  Believe it or not, there are people who are saying this is a right-
wing agenda to try to get people to get married, as if that is a 
horrible thing to actually have mothers and fathers of children 
actually get married; that is some sort of secret plan to destroy the 
world. I do not understand it.
  What we are trying to do is help two people who at the time have a 
commitment and have a product of that commitment called a child who 
needs love and support from as many people as that child can get--
optimally, a mother and a father. All we are saying is give this child 
a chance; hopefully, a better chance. At least try. At least try to 
help people who want to be helped. Not force it on them, just try to 
help people who have, at least at the moment of the time they are 
looking at the face of this new creation, who actually still dream and 
hope of a better life with that child and together to pour some water 
on that seed to nurture it instead of folding up that piece of paper 
and saying: I got your money. That is all I came for. I am here from 
the Government, and I got your money. I got your signature, and that is 
all I am here to do. And look down at that child and say: I know what 
is going to happen, but what do I care? I have no requirement to care 
about whether mothers and fathers stay together and raise and nurture 
that child. It is not my job.
  I will be offering an amendment, if we get a chance to offer 
amendments, to actually increase to the President's budget figure the 
amount of money in this program because I do believe that Government 
should be on the side of children in creating at least a chance for 
them to be raised in a stable two-parent family.
  What happens to the poverty rate? If you increase the marriage rate, 
the poverty rate drops not some but very dramatically. So the keys in 
this legislation of work and marriage are the two strongest indicators 
of a reduction in poverty. The other factors many others suggest are 
keys to reducing poverty is increased education. It helps, but it is 
not anywhere as powerful as the focus of this bill. Reduced family 
size? Again, the more children you have the higher the chance you are 
going to be in poverty. So if you have fewer children, it helps--again, 
not as much as the focus of this bill. The interesting thing is, if you 
factor all these four things together, look what happens to the poverty 
level: Work; marriage, which allows in many cases the opportunity for 
education; and reduced family size--dramatic reduction in poverty. Can 
you imagine, for the longest time we didn't want to do this? And we 
still don't do this. The results are powerful.

  What do some on the other side still hold to? I underscore ``some'' 
because thankfully we have had bipartisan support in much of what we 
have done here. What do some on the other side see as the answer? Spend 
more money. If we want to get people out of poverty, just increase the 
amount of money you give people in poverty and, guess what, you get 
them out of poverty.
  Here is doubling the welfare benefit. If we doubled the welfare 
benefit, what would happen? Hardly any decrease in poverty. The Senator 
from Massachusetts might say it is obvious on its face, if we give 
people more money--in fact, it isn't that he might say it; yes, he did 
say it. He said it is obvious, if you give people more money, if you 
raise the minimum wage, of course poverty is going to go down. We are 
not talking about raising the minimum wage here; we are talking about 
doubling the welfare benefit. It makes barely a scratch. So I guess it 
isn't all that obvious, is it?
  I guess, just like the rest of us, people who are experiencing 
poverty in their lives are as complex as the rest of us and have a lot 
of factors that go into whether they are poor, not just how much money 
comes in the door. There are a lot of factors that go into whether 
people rise in society. What we know works is work and marriage and 
families. We know that works. You know what. America knows it works. 
That is obvious. It is obvious to me and hopefully it will be obvious 
to my colleagues as we proceed here today. Instead of focusing on 
minimum wage--again, it has its time and place, but there is no 
evidence at all that has been put forward that it does anything to 
reduce poverty. In fact, straight cash assistance--not identical with 
the minimum wage, but the same idea behind it--doesn't significantly 
affect poverty.
  What we are doing in this bill works. It works from an analytical 
point of view; it works from a moral point of view; it works from a 
commonsense point of view. It is all about what we Americans value and 
understand and revere--at least we have throughout the history of this 
country.
  So I am hopeful we can move forward, that we can get an agreement to 
somehow or another dispose of the Kennedy amendment, either in this 
bill or at some future time, and move to passage of this very important 
piece of legislation which is going to have a dramatic impact in taking 
this number and numbers like it, the poverty rate among Black children, 
of all children--it has not just been among African-American children; 
it has been among all children as well as mothers--down, and down 
further.
  We have an obligation if we know something is working to make it 
permanent and extend it and make it better, to do more of what we know 
works. That is what this bill does. I am hopeful the Senate will give 
its support to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             ENERGY PRICES

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor nearly a week ago to 
talk about high energy prices. I know several of my colleagues have 
been speaking about this issue today. At the time I spoke last week, I 
outlined a series of suggestions, 13 concrete actions I was urging the 
administration and particularly the President take to begin addressing 
this problem, both of high price of gas but also the high price of 
natural gas and the impact that is having on American families and on 
our economy.
  The figures are fairly startling. Today, energy prices are at 
historic highs. Some analysts estimate that energy price shocks this 
year could cost American consumers more than $40 billion. Speaking very 
frankly, we cannot afford this kind of expense. We need to maintain a 
healthy pace of growth in our gross domestic product, and high energy 
prices dampen that growth. Clearly we need to give attention to this.
  I was encouraged by some of the reaction we received to my statement 
last week. I did receive a letter from the National Association of 
Convenience Stores, particularly endorsing the suggestion that we begin 
to address this boutique fuels problem, the proliferation of boutique 
fuels.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record 
following my remarks here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)

[[Page S3346]]

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I was also encouraged by the comments of 
my colleague from New Mexico and others who have come to the floor 
endorsing some very similar suggestions. It is important that we speak 
today about this issue because of the OPEC meeting that is about to 
occur in Vienna, Austria. I want to reiterate that it is extremely 
important that the administration assert pressure on OPEC, the OPEC 
members who are meeting in Vienna, to forego their proposed 1 million 
barrel-per-day production cut. We do need to rein in high oil and gas 
prices and we need to send a strong message that cutting production of 
oil in OPEC is not the way to do that.
  OPEC has the ability to affect price in two important ways: They can 
add to supply or they can talk down the price of oil on the world 
market. We have seen them do both in previous periods. I don't see any 
real action to affect the price of oil on either front at this point. 
We have been out of the price band--this is, I believe, this $22 to $28 
band that OPEC has talked about--for quite some time now. At the same 
time that we have been way above that band, some OPEC members are 
talking about not only keeping production steady but actually cutting 
production.
  This would be a very wrong-headed move. It would have adverse 
consequences on American consumers. I hope very much they will 
reconsider and I hope our administration will use its very best efforts 
in the next day or two to ensure that OPEC in fact does not cut 
production.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              National Association


                                        of Convenience Stores,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 25, 2004.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
         Resources, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the retail members of the 
     National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS), I would 
     like to express our appreciation for your comments yesterday 
     regarding the proliferation of boutique fuels. As the 
     representative of an industry that sells more than 75 percent 
     of the gasoline consumed in the United States every year, 
     NACS has long advocated for a comprehensive fuels policy that 
     would restore gasoline fungibility to the system without 
     sacrificing supply.
       The problems associated with the proliferation of boutique 
     fuels are significant. As you noted yesterday, these 
     specifications have ``greatly reduced the overall flexibility 
     and efficiency of our fuels system.'' We could not agree with 
     you more. America's motor fuels system, including the 
     refining, pipeline and storage infrastructure, was not 
     designed to accommodate dozens of unique, non-fungible fuel 
     blends.
       Last year, NACS commissioned a study that analyzed the 
     impact these boutique fuels have on the nation's gasoline 
     supply and assessed the effect possible adjustments to the 
     fuels regulatory system might have on refining capacity. Our 
     study revealed that reducing the number of boutique fuel 
     blends, while maintaining or improving environmental quality, 
     will improve fungibility. However, it will also reduce the 
     production capacity of the domestic refining system by 
     requiring the production of more environmentally sensitive 
     blends, which are more difficult to produce. For this reason, 
     an approach to boutique fuels must be carefully balanced with 
     the preservation of supply.
       Your acknowledgement of the challenges facing the petroleum 
     industry and your interest in overcoming these challenges is 
     greatly appreciated by the convenience store industry. We 
     look forward to working with you and your colleagues in a 
     non-partisan, policy-specific effort to restore efficiency 
     and flexibility to the gasoline marketplace.
       Thank you and please let me know how NACS might be of 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John Eichberger,
                                            Director, Motor Fuels.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains of the 5 minutes I 
requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 10 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________