[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S888-S904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007--Continued


                           Amendment No. 103

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 30 
minutes equally divided on amendment No. 103, as modified. Who yields 
time?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Snowe, Senator Landrieu, and others, to provide 
regulatory assistance to our Nation's small businesses.
  This amendment requires that when Federal agencies issue new rules 
and regulations that impact small business, they also must issue 
compliance guides for small businesses. The amendment also requires 
that the compliance guides be written in plain English and made 
available in a timely manner.
  I think this is a commonsense requirement. It not only reduces the 
administrative costs for small business, but it also increases the 
level of compliance with such new rules and regulations. I think the 
work opportunity tax credit is an example. That isn't a program that a 
lot of small businesses have taken advantage of. Part of it is because 
they don't know about it, and part is they don't know how to comply 
with it. They don't have the opportunity to hire the specialists that 
might be needed to understand it or to do the recordkeeping on it. So 
they don't take advantage of it to the level they could. It is a 
provision in the tax bill that could make quite a difference to small 
employers.
  Many small employers simply lack the resources, the outside 
consultants, the experts necessary to continually advise them of 
changes in Federal rules that impact the way they must run their 
business. As it now stands, smaller businesses currently pay 
disproportionate per employee compliance costs when compared to larger 
employers. The average per employee cost for Federal regulatory 
compliance in a business with less than 20 employees is 45 percent 
higher than the same cost for a business with 500 or more employees. So 
it is about $7,600 for a small business to comply versus $5,200 for a 
big business to comply. Those numbers stagger me--the cost for small 
business to comply with Federal rules and regulations. That doesn't 
count the cost of complying with the Tax Code, which is a whole other 
range of costs.
  Cost mandates, such as a minimum wage increase, impose significant 
financial burdens on our small employers. We must do everything we can 
to help alleviate this burden and ensure that small businesses remain 
the well-run engine of our economy, and providing the kind of 
compliance assistance called for in Senator Snowe's amendment is one of 
the ways we can assist small businesses in meeting the administrative 
costs associated with Federal regulation.
  I commend Senator Snowe for her efforts on behalf of small businesses 
and am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation with her. She has 
put in diligent efforts to hold hearings and get this into place in the 
committee that she chaired, the Small Business Committee, on which she 
is now the ranking member.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that not only provides 
assistance that reduces employer costs but also assistance that 
increases employer compliance. That is two goals. This amendment will 
do both of those. I ask for your support.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we still anticipate a vote at 2:45 p.m. 
As I mentioned, we are going to urge the Senate to accept the amendment 
offered by Senator Snowe. I think it is an important contribution to 
small businesses and their understanding of the kinds of rules and 
regulations that have been out there and do it in ways that are 
understandable and in a timely way and to ensure that the relevant 
committee is going to find out how that is being implemented. We are 
certainly in strong support of that concept and idea. I commend those 
who have been involved in it.

[[Page S889]]

  We are going to vote at 2:45. We have amendments that are related to 
the Finance Committee. I talked with Senator Baucus during the noon 
hour. His staff is working on some that have been offered by Senator 
Sessions, and we are in the process of trying to work with the Senator 
to see what progress can be made, and the Finance Committee staff, as 
well as Senator Baucus, is attentive to those issues.
  Senator Roberts has an amendment dealing with childcare and small 
business. It was a subject matter he talked about during our hearing in 
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. He will come over 
to the floor now and address the Senate about that issue. We have been 
trying to work with him. We think most of us have been strong 
supporters in terms of childcare. Senator Dodd has been a real leader 
with Senator Hatch in the past with the block grant childcare program.
  We have a childcare program that is also tied in with the Social 
Security program, and we have a very effective childcare program in the 
military which receives awards. It is very close, actually, to the bill 
that was initially introduced by Senator Dodd a number of years ago.
  We will have a chance to consider those amendments in a short period 
of time. I will take a few minutes now to review for the Senate what 
will be the first vote tomorrow, and that will be on what we call the 
line-item veto amendment.
  We had an excellent debate and discussion on that amendment 
yesterday. I refer any of those interested to read the Record, the 
excellent comments that were made on this issue by the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and also the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, enormously, I think, comprehensive 
comments on it. I urge they read the comments of Senator Gregg as well, 
who is the proponent of the amendment.
  Senator Conrad and Senator Byrd made excellent presentations. We will 
be considering that early tomorrow. I hope those who are interested in 
the amendment will take a few moments and look back at the Record. It 
is a very complete record on that issue. I stand with Senator Conrad 
and Senator Byrd, for the reasons they have outlined, in opposition to 
the Gregg amendment.
  Next we will have a chance to vote on what we call a clean increase 
in the minimum wage. That means a vote on the increase in the minimum 
wage over a 2-year period to rise from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to vote for what we call a clean bill 
on the minimum wage. I do so for a number of reasons.
  First, this is the area of need. It is among workers who haven't 
gotten a raise in the last 10 years. For 10 years, the longest time 
since we had a minimum wage increase, they have lost effectively 20 
percent of their purchasing power, and they are working in tough and 
difficult jobs. These are men and women of great pride and dignity. 
They do hard, difficult, trying work, and they do it to the best of 
their ability. They deserve to have a raise.
  I don't think any of us in this country thought the minimum wage 
would be a permanent wage for millions of Americans, and yet, 
nonetheless, if one looks at the figures, effectively 40 percent of 
those earning the minimum wage were earning the minimum wage 4 years 
ago. That they have been able to make ends meet over this amount of 
time is extraordinary, particularly when they have members of their 
family to look after.
  This country has said if one works hard 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of 
the year, one shouldn't have to live in poverty in the richest nation 
in the world. That is an issue of fairness. It is a moral issue.
  As we demonstrated earlier, the Members of the great face of this 
country have all spoken about the morality of this issue. It is part of 
our Constitution that talks about the general welfare, how are we going 
to treat each other. It is as old as the Mayflower Compact. In my State 
of Massachusetts, before landing, the Pilgrims gathered together near 
Provincetown. Most people think they landed at Plymouth Rock, but they 
landed at Provincetown, MA. Before they landed--they had been at sea 
for close to 100 days, and many had died and many suffered from 
disease--they got together and talked about their Compact, their 
willingness to work together for a common purpose and common respect 
for their fellow human beings. That was going to be the essence of 
their whole life experiment in the United States.
  It is reflected in the actions that have been taken in this body with 
the minimum wage. On only one occasion in the last nine occasions when 
we raised the minimum wage have we added a tax provision.
  Again, the minimum wage has lost 20 percent of all of its purchasing 
power. It was a good deal higher in the sixties, seventies, and 
eighties. It has dropped and dropped significantly over time and has 
lost that purchasing power.
  Secondly, only once in 1996 did we pair a minimum wage increase with 
tax cuts. Previous increases had strong bipartisan support, despite the 
lack of tax cuts. In 1989, the minimum wage was raised with no tax cuts 
and passed by a margin of 89 to 8. In 1977, with no giveaways, an 
increase passed 63 to 24. We have seen what has happened. Only one 
time--it didn't happen in 1938, 1949, 1955, 1961, 1966, 1974, 1977, 
1989--only in 1996. And look in the last 10 years what has happened in 
terms of the reduction of taxes for corporations and for small 
businesses. In corporations, it is $276 billion in tax breaks; small 
businesses, $36 billion; and no raise for minimum wage workers.
  We didn't hesitate. We were around here to provide tax benefits to 
small businesses and large corporations. Where were the voices to say 
let's give the minimum wage workers a little boost?
  Now, all of a sudden, we are trying to get minimum wage workers a 
little boost, and everybody is running around to get an increase in tax 
provisions. Fair is fair, Mr. President; fair is fair.
  We have seen what has happened in productivity. Over the last 10 
years--here are the statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics--
profits are up 45 percent, productivity is up 29 percent, and the 
minimum wage is down 20 percent. These minimum wage workers haven't 
even had the opportunity to get an increase in their salaries in spite 
of the fact that we have seen a real increase in productivity. 
Historically, when we saw an increase in productivity, that was 
reflected in an increase in the minimum wage. That was all true in the 
1960s, 1970s, up to the 1980s. As productivity increased, so did the 
minimum wage increase over a considerable period of time, but not in 
the last few years.
  As I have pointed out, a recent Gallup Poll found that 86 percent of 
small business owners do not think the minimum wage affects their 
businesses. Three out of four small businesses said an increase in the 
minimum wage would have no effect on their company. Many small 
businesses are already paying higher wages to recruit and retain 
quality workers. A higher minimum wage actually benefits them because 
it levels the playing field and allows them to compete with the bigger 
business.
  What we have found over time, when we provide a decent wage to 
workers--and this is demonstrated; I mentioned it here, I spelled it 
out in some greater degree on yesterday--what we find is we get workers 
who are loyal to the business. We find there is less of a turnover when 
there was an increase in the minimum wage to a living wage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Our time has expired. That is interesting. Have we 
reserved the last 5 minutes for debate on the Snowe amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was not the unanimous consent agreement. 
There is 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts and the 
diligence with which he has worked on this issue and the number of 
times we have debated it. I appreciate the majority leader making it 
possible for us to consider amendments on this bill. I understand how 
some people would like

[[Page S890]]

to have this as a clean amendment, that we just do the increase. The 
debate the last three times we have done it has been about whether we 
can have some provisions for small businesses to offset the impact of 
the raise in the minimum wage.
  I want to bring a more personal face to this small business. We 
confuse that sometimes even with General Motors and some of the 
airlines. Those are big corporations. In fact, the ones I am 
particularly concerned about are the ones with 50 employees or less, 
and even more concerned about the ones that only have 2 or 3 employees. 
The impact and their ability to adjust is much more limited. We are 
talking about the inventors in their garages who have an idea and who 
will employ another person to help put their product together and 
market it. We are talking about the corner grocery store. We are 
talking about the laundry. We are talking about the little shoe store, 
the independent one.
  These are families that are eking out a living. These are not 
families that are getting rich. These are families that took on a lot 
of risk for the American dream. They are hoping that with all of the 
loans they put in place to be able to do this business that they always 
dreamed of doing, they might make a return on their investment and 
enough to keep their family going. But there is no guarantee.
  These are the people who--and I know; I used to be a small 
businessman. I used to own shoe stores. One of my definitions of a 
small businessman is the guy who wakes up, sits up straight in bed in 
the middle of the night and says: Tomorrow is payday; how do I meet 
payroll? And they figure out a way because the employees get paid 
first.
  These are people worrying about how to stay in business, how to make 
a living, and taking on a whole lot of risk to make sure other people 
have jobs.
  We have to remember that the small businessman will be forced to come 
up with additional funds to pay his or her workers on what we are 
mandating today. Those funds don't come from a money tree or some pot 
of gold at the end of the rainbow. They come out of the pockets of the 
Nation's small businessmen. It is the penalty they pay for taking the 
risk associated with running a small business.
  I have about 3 minutes. I yield the remainder of the time to the 
Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
leadership on this amendment that is so important to the small business 
sector of our economy. I also thank Chairman Kennedy as well for 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  I rise today in support of the pending modified amendment we will be 
voting on shortly that has been offered by the Senator from Wyoming, 
Mr. Enzi, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, as well by the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, to enhance compliance 
assistance for small businesses. I truly appreciate all those joining 
me in this effort.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kerry, Bond, Sununu, and 
Roberts as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I want to say to Members of the Senate, 
this amendment would significantly help to reduce the regulatory burden 
imposed on small businesses throughout this country. The amendment is 
designed to clarify an existing Federal law that the Senate unanimously 
passed back in 1996. The Government Accountability Office has suggested 
that we needed to have further clarification to the existing law 
because many Federal agencies are circumventing the law. These agencies 
are using loopholes to ignore requirements under the law that the 
agencies publish small business compliance guides so that small 
businesses know how to comply with complex Federal regulations. The 
agencies have used ambiguity in the law as a rationale for not 
assisting small businesses.
  This amendment would clarify existing Federal rules and regulations, 
by requiring that Federal agencies produce compliance assistance 
materials to help small businesses satisfy their regulatory 
obligations. Because the GAO has found widespread and pervasive 
disregard of this law by agencies, we felt it was very important to 
clarify the law so that small business not only gets the assistance it 
requires but also can meet the regulatory requirements promulgated by 
the Federal government. As we well know, small businesses face a 
disproportionate burden of the impact of regulations in rules issued by 
Federal agencies. In fact, employers with 20 or fewer employees face 
44.8 percent more of a regulatory burden than companies with 500 or 
more employees, in terms of compliance costs per employee.

  So you can see that for our Nation's small businesses, we clearly 
need to do better so they can continue to drive our economy, by 
creating three-quarters of all the net new jobs each year. This 
amendment will go a long way toward easing the impact of the cost of 
small business regulatory compliance and making sure the agencies 
comply with requirements under existing law to provide the support 
small businesses rightly deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 103), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas has an 
amendment. He has brought it up during the course of meetings of our 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and he has been 
advocating for it for some period of time. He wishes to address the 
Senate at this time, if we could have order so that the Senator could 
be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 102

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 
102.
  As we debate the issue of minimum wage, we can't forget the impact on 
the employers who hire these minimum wage workers. Small businesses pay 
45 percent of the payroll in the United States, and they have created 
60 to 80 percent of new jobs over the last decade. In my home State of 
Kansas, small businesses actually employ the brunt of hard-working 
families. I often hear from these employers who agree with their 
workers that they deserve a fair wage for a fair day's work, but they

[[Page S891]]

admit, however, that they struggle to offer the basic benefits to their 
employees such as childcare. With a mandated increase in the minimum 
wage, that struggle will only grow. So affordable childcare oftentimes 
becomes a factor in keeping a job for many Americans in small 
communities such as Dodge City, my hometown, and other very similar 
communities. Childcare facilities are very scarce, limiting the 
possibilities for families to earn----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, maybe we 
could have order. We are making good progress on this legislation. This 
is an important amendment. The Senator has spent a good deal of time, 
and we welcome the opportunity to hear him on it. We would ask our 
colleagues and friends if they would be good enough to take their 
conversations to another part of the Senate so we can hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators, please remove your conversations out 
of the well.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and I thank the 
Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues to my right who, hopefully, 
will take their conversation from the floor of the Senate.
  Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources 
required to start up and support a childcare center like happens in 
many areas in urban America and big cities.
  When I came to the Senate in 1997, one of the first bills I 
introduced was the Small Business Child Care Act, which authorized a 
short-term flexible grant as a program to encourage small businesses to 
work together or with other local childcare agencies to provide 
childcare services for their employees. This amendment includes the 
bipartisan language of the Small Business Child Care Act that was 
passed out of the HELP Committee in August of 2005 as part of the 
larger childcare and development block grant.
  Under the amendment, small businesses are eligible for grants up to 
$500,000 for startup costs and training and scholarships and other 
related activities, with priority given to grantees who work with other 
small businesses or local childcare organizations. These grants all 
have a matching requirement which encourages self-sustaining facilities 
that will go on well after the program ends.
  In many small Kansas towns, childcare facilities can be very scarce, 
as I have said before. This amendment would alleviate the strain on 
working families who often have to close the door on the opportunity to 
be a double-income family because of the lack of childcare options in 
their communities.
  When I first ran for the House back in 1980, I was going door to door 
in Dodge City. I was in south Dodge and I knocked on a door and a young 
lady came to the door and two children were immediately right there 
with her. I handed her a brochure, and I said: I am running for 
Congress. What can I do for you? Is there anything I can do for you as 
a candidate?
  She looked at me with the two kids behind her--she was obviously a 
single mother--and she said: Mr. Roberts, it's your world, I'm just 
living in it.
  That made a big impression on me.
  I said: What do you need more than anything else?
  She said: If there could be a possibility that there could be any 
childcare for these two children, I could go to work. I could go back 
to work.
  But that was not the case at that particular time. Then I promised 
myself that we would try our very best so that in a small community 
with a bank, the implement dealer, and, say, a restaurant, they could 
come together, and with these kinds of grants offer affordable 
childcare.
  So I am very hopeful we can get this amendment passed. It is a small 
change that will make a big difference in the lives of many employees 
and employers who see a need for childcare in their communities. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to thank the Senator from Kansas 
for offering this amendment. Back about 20 years ago, the Senator from 
Utah and I, along with Senator Kennedy and others, authored the first 
childcare development block grant ever to be proposed by the Congress. 
We had hoped in those days that we would be able to expand the 
availability, affordability, and quality of childcare to millions of 
Americans and their children who are lacking those resources.
  Over the years, we have provided some good assistance. I am grateful 
to my colleagues over the years who have been supportive.
  We have gone stale on the commitment over the last 5 or 6 years. The 
funding has not gone up at all and demand continues to grow. We have 
done a fairly good job in serving some of the working poor. We must do 
better, however. We have not done a good job, in my view, on the most 
critical issue most parents and others care about, and that is the 
quality of childcare. This amendment gets to the quality of child care 
by providing small businesses the opportunity to use the grant for 
facilities and to create partnerships with local organizations such as 
health departments.
  What is happening with our colleague's amendment is that it is trying 
to expand opportunities for families, and I am grateful to him for 
proposing it. Everyday I hear about the communities in which the demand 
for child care for exceeds the supply. This amendment would increase 
the supply and allow more parents to go to work knowing that their 
children are safe.
  I am supporting it. I think it is worthwhile, and it will help make a 
difference of expanding quality and access.
  It is good for everyone involved. A lot of times we offer legislation 
with winners and losers. Here, everybody wins. From a business 
standpoint, they are retaining good employees, allowing parents' minds 
to be focused on their jobs. In no small measure, this depends on how 
you feel, where your children are, who is caring for them, and what the 
conditions are. In terms of productivity and retention, all the 
elements businesses desire for employees, childcare is a major 
component. For the parents, obviously, not to be worried or concerned 
about the quality of the care their children receive and whether they 
can afford it is a major issue. I am preaching to the choir for those 
who understand what I am talking about. Obviously, from the child's 
perspective, it's essential to be able to have that good, nurturing 
environment. There is not a guarantee they will get it in every case, 
but it is more likely if this amendment passes.
  The difficult area is with smaller businesses. Many larger 
corporations have installed childcare facilities onsite. In fact, in 
some cases they have offered less in salaries and wages in exchange for 
providing better childcare; I am not saying that is great, but people 
are so hungry to have a good, safe, childcare environment, they will 
opt for lesser wage or salary in exchange for the assurance their 
children are in a safe place. Smaller businesses cannot do that. Some 
of them are at shopping malls, and they develop consortiums and set 
aside space. There are a lot of creative ideas. But it is the hardest 
thing in the world for smaller business to provide child care. It is 
not that they do not recognize the need for it. They understand the 
value of it. This amendment, from a child's perspective, from a 
parent's perspective, and from a business perspective is a win for all. 
I commend my colleague. We have talked of this in the past and agreed 
on its importance. I thank Senator Enzi.
  While I am here, I would like to talk about the underlying bill, to 
raise the minimum wage. Exactly because of what the Senator from Kansas 
has offered, it is important to know that his amendment is a related 
matter when it comes to children. The increase in the minimum wage has 
a huge impact on children.
  So I am taking advantage of a couple of minutes on his amendment to 
highlight this point. In the last 5 years, we have watched child 
poverty in this country increase by 1.3 million children. This figure 
is from the U.S. Census Bureau, not a private think tank making this 
up. Nearly 12.9 million children in this country live in poverty.
  Obviously, that is a matter of great concern, I hope to all of us. 
What is bothersome to me and should be to every single one of us--I 
don't care what your politics are or your political persuasion--the 
fact that the United

[[Page S892]]

States of America, at the outset of the 21st century, has one of the 
highest rate of child poverty among all the industrialized nations. 
That is something that ought to concern each and every one of us, not 
just because of what a shameful statistic that is. As we look to the 
21st century, watching our country grow, meeting the challenges in 
front of us, we have to do a better job if we are going to have a well-
prepared generation to meet the challenges.
  Aside from providing decent child care, we know by increasing the 
earning capacity of parents we make a difference. In fact, nearly 6 
million children will benefit from a minimum wage increase.
  Children whose parents are economically secure--and this increase is 
not going to guarantee security, but it moves a family closer to it--
have better attendance in school and have a higher concentration on the 
work they are asked to do. Performance levels go up, test scores go up, 
and graduation rates increase when a family's economic circumstances 
are far more stable. In addition, children have stronger immune 
systems, better health, fewer expensive hospital visits and fewer run-
ins with the juvenile justice system. Those are facts when you have a 
family doing better economically. For the families who have the 
greatest economic stability at home, these statistics improve in almost 
every category.
  Because of what the Senator from Kansas has offered, focusing on 
childcare, combined with what the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy, is leading today on the minimum wage, we can make a difference 
for these children. That is the point I wanted to make to my 
colleagues.
  I commend them both. It is long overdue. My hope is that the 
amendment from my friend from Kansas will be a forerunner this year for 
increasing our commitments to child care. My colleague from Maine, 
Senator Snowe, has been terrific on this issue over the years. Senator 
Hatch was my principal cosponsor on this many years ago. It was 
courageous of him then. A lot of people did not realize the value of 
it. I am remiss not mentioning those who played a significant role. And 
let me add my colleague, Senator Roberts, for his leadership on this 
issue. I thank him immensely. I thank Senator Kennedy for his 
leadership on minimum wage. We can make a difference for children with 
both of these proposals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague for his 
excellent presentation. He has been the leader of the children's caucus 
and a leader on this issue of childcare.
  We have 14,000 family members now waiting, parents who are waiting 
for childcare slots in my State of Massachusetts.
  I have listened to the Senator give the statistics nationwide. This 
is all related to work. It is obviously related to lower income because 
those at the lower income levels have less opportunity as far as 
affordability.
  I can remember when the Senator first offered the childcare 
legislation. I remember the debates we had about limiting the childcare 
legislation. We debated for about 10 days or so while it was constantly 
adjusted, altered, and changed. Eventually, it passed. The childcare 
block grant has done an enormous amount of good.
  The Senator has been very much involved in the other childcare 
programs that have come out through the CDBG and the other Social 
Security programs. There is a third childcare program, the one in the 
military. If you read back in the history books, that particular 
program passed by over 90 votes. This, effectively, was the legislation 
the Senator from Connecticut introduced. Today, when we have 
comparisons about which childcare programs work the best, everyone 
points to the military. The Senator from Connecticut can give the 
reasons for it.
  The point is, this is a matter of enormous importance to working 
families, with the whole change in the workforce, the increasing number 
of women in the workforce, the increasing number of women with 
children, the increasing demands upon those women, in particular, but 
not exclusively.
  We appreciate the fact that the Senator from Kansas would give focus 
and attention to this issue. We wish to work with the Senator. We can 
do part of the job in terms of the authorization. We are going to rely 
on him to help get limited resources to make sure we bring life to this 
program. I thank the Senator for his statements and comments.
  We look forward to hearing from my friend and colleague from Wyoming, 
hopefully, urging acceptance of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I echo what the Senator from Massachusetts 
said, that this does provide for authorization. There is room for that 
to be included, and we can help look for the resources to do something 
on that.
  I commend both Senator Roberts and Senator Dodd for their 
tenaciousness and their active work to be able to bring this to the 
Senate at this point in time. I note that Senator Roberts has been 
working on this for about 10 years. Six years is the average for a bill 
around here. That should qualify.
  I ask we make this part of that package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Connecticut, 
I thank him very much for his comments. He has been absolutely 
tenacious, as described by the Senator from Wyoming.
  I can remember, it was about, what, 5, 6, 7 years ago, that we all 
were over, on a cold day, at the childcare center that is offered for 
employees on Capitol Hill over by the Hart building. We had a press 
conference. Senator Kennedy was there, I was there, Senator Dodd was 
there, I think Senator Jeffords was there at that time. That was 4 or 5 
years ago.
  So we should be moving on these things. I pledge my support to see 
what we can do down the road.
  I rise to call up Senate amendment 102.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 102.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a small business child care grant program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SMALL BUSINESS CHILD CARE GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish a program to award grants to States, on a 
     competitive basis, to assist States in providing funds to 
     encourage the establishment and operation of employer-
     operated child care programs.
       (b) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including an assurance that the funds required under 
     subsection (e) will be provided.
       (c) Amount and Period of Grant.--The Secretary shall 
     determine the amount of a grant to a State under this section 
     based on the population of the State as compared to the 
     population of all States receiving grants under this section. 
     The Secretary shall make the grant for a period of 3 years.
       (d) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A State shall use amounts provided under a 
     grant awarded under this section to provide assistance to 
     small businesses (or consortia formed in accordance with 
     paragraph (3)) located in the State to enable the small 
     businesses (or consortia) to establish and operate child care 
     programs. Such assistance may include--
       (A) technical assistance in the establishment of a child 
     care program;
       (B) assistance for the startup costs related to a child 
     care program;
       (C) assistance for the training of child care providers;
       (D) scholarships for low-income wage earners;
       (E) the provision of services to care for sick children or 
     to provide care to school-aged children;
       (F) the entering into of contracts with local resource and 
     referral organizations or local health departments;
       (G) assistance for care for children with disabilities;
       (H) payment of expenses for renovation or operation of a 
     child care facility; or

[[Page S893]]

       (I) assistance for any other activity determined 
     appropriate by the State.
       (2) Application.--In order for a small business or 
     consortium to be eligible to receive assistance from a State 
     under this section, the small business involved shall prepare 
     and submit to the State an application at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the State may 
     require.
       (3) Preference.--
       (A) In general.--In providing assistance under this 
     section, a State shall give priority to an applicant that 
     desires to form a consortium to provide child care in a 
     geographic area within the State where such care is not 
     generally available or accessible.
       (B) Consortium.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a 
     consortium shall be made up of 2 or more entities that shall 
     include small businesses and that may include large 
     businesses, nonprofit agencies or organizations, local 
     governments, or other appropriate entities.
       (4) Limitations.--With respect to grant funds received 
     under this section, a State may not provide in excess of 
     $500,000 in assistance from such funds to any single 
     applicant.
       (e) Matching Requirement.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section, a State shall provide assurances to 
     the Secretary that, with respect to the costs to be incurred 
     by a covered entity receiving assistance in carrying out 
     activities under this section, the covered entity will make 
     available (directly or through donations from public or 
     private entities) non-Federal contributions to such costs in 
     an amount equal to--
       (1) for the first fiscal year in which the covered entity 
     receives such assistance, not less than 50 percent of such 
     costs ($1 for each $1 of assistance provided to the covered 
     entity under the grant);
       (2) for the second fiscal year in which the covered entity 
     receives such assistance, not less than 66\2/3\ percent of 
     such costs ($2 for each $1 of assistance provided to the 
     covered entity under the grant); and
       (3) for the third fiscal year in which the covered entity 
     receives such assistance, not less than 75 percent of such 
     costs ($3 for each $1 of assistance provided to the covered 
     entity under the grant).
       (f) Requirements of Providers.--To be eligible to receive 
     assistance under a grant awarded under this section, a child 
     care provider--
       (1) who receives assistance from a State shall comply with 
     all applicable State and local licensing and regulatory 
     requirements and all applicable health and safety standards 
     in effect in the State; and
       (2) who receives assistance from an Indian tribe or tribal 
     organization shall comply with all applicable regulatory 
     standards.
       (g) State-Level Activities.--A State may not retain more 
     than 3 percent of the amount described in subsection (c) for 
     State administration and other State-level activities.
       (h) Administration.--
       (1) State responsibility.--A State shall have 
     responsibility for administering a grant awarded for the 
     State under this section and for monitoring covered entities 
     that receive assistance under such grant.
       (2) Audits.--A State shall require each covered entity 
     receiving assistance under the grant awarded under this 
     section to conduct an annual audit with respect to the 
     activities of the covered entity. Such audits shall be 
     submitted to the State.
       (3) Misuse of funds.--
       (A) Repayment.--If the State determines, through an audit 
     or otherwise, that a covered entity receiving assistance 
     under a grant awarded under this section has misused the 
     assistance, the State shall notify the Secretary of the 
     misuse. The Secretary, upon such a notification, may seek 
     from such a covered entity the repayment of an amount equal 
     to the amount of any such misused assistance plus interest.
       (B) Appeals process.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     provide for an appeals process with respect to repayments 
     under this paragraph.
       (i) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) 2-year study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine--
       (i) the capacity of covered entities to meet the child care 
     needs of communities within States;
       (ii) the kinds of consortia that are being formed with 
     respect to child care at the local level to carry out 
     programs funded under this section; and
       (iii) who is using the programs funded under this section 
     and the income levels of such individuals.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 28 months after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted in accordance with subparagraph (A).
       (2) 4-year study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the number 
     of child care facilities that are funded through covered 
     entities that received assistance through a grant awarded 
     under this section and that remain in operation, and the 
     extent to which such facilities are meeting the child care 
     needs of the individuals served by such facilities.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 52 months after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under this section, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the results of the study 
     conducted in accordance with subparagraph (A).
       (j) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered entity.--The term ``covered entity'' means a 
     small business or a consortium formed in accordance with 
     subsection (d)(3).
       (2) Indian community.--The term ``Indian community'' means 
     a community served by an Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       (3) Indian tribe; tribal organization.--The terms ``Indian 
     tribe'' and ``tribal organization'' have the meanings given 
     the terms in section 658P of the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
       (4) Small business.--The term ``small business'' means an 
     employer who employed an average of at least 2 but not more 
     than 50 employees on the business days during the preceding 
     calendar year.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 658P of the Child Care and Development Block 
     Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858n).
       (k) Application to Indian Tribes and Tribal 
     Organizations.--In this section:
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (f)(1), 
     and in paragraphs (2) and (3), the term ``State'' includes an 
     Indian tribe or tribal organization.
       (2) Geographic references.--The term ``State'' includes an 
     Indian community in subsections (c) (the second and third 
     place the term appears), (d)(1) (the second place the term 
     appears), (d)(3)(A) (the second place the term appears), and 
     (i)(1)(A)(i).
       (3) State-level activities.--The term ``State-level 
     activities'' includes activities at the tribal level.
       (l) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section, $50,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012.
       (2) Studies and administration.--With respect to the total 
     amount appropriated for such period in accordance with this 
     subsection, not more than $2,500,000 of that amount may be 
     used for expenditures related to conducting studies required 
     under, and the administration of, this section.
       (m) Termination of Program.--The program established under 
     subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 2012.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 102) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the Senator from Alabama looking 
for recognition. He has filed some amendments. Hopefully, I will have 
an opportunity to discuss some of those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their 
courtesy as we discuss some of the issues I have raised by my 
amendments.
  What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is amendment 118 offered 
by Senator Kyl.


                     Amendment No. 106, as Modified

  Mr. SESSIONS. I call for the regular order with respect to Senate 
amendment 106 and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 106), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING PERSONAL SAVINGS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the personal saving rate in the United States is at its 
     lowest point since the Great Depression, with the rate having 
     fallen into negative territory;
       (2) the United States ranks at the bottom of the Group of 
     Twenty (G-20) nations in terms of net national saving rate;
       (3) approximately half of all the working people of the 
     United States work for an employer that does not offer any 
     kind of retirement plan;
       (4) existing savings policies enacted by Congress provide 
     limited incentives to save for low- and moderate-income 
     families; and
       (5) the Social Security program was enacted to serve as the 
     safest component of a retirement system that also includes 
     employer-sponsored retirement plans and personal savings.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Congress should enact policies that promote savings 
     vehicles for retirement that are simple, easily accessible 
     and provide adequate financial security for all the people of 
     the United States;
       (2) it is important to begin retirement saving as early as 
     possible to take full advantage of the power of compound 
     interest; and
       (3) regularly contributing money to a financially-sound 
     investment account is one

[[Page S894]]

     important method for helping to achieve one's retirement 
     goals.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is important as we think about low- 
and middle-income, middle-class workers in America today, to think 
about how they are getting along and whether they are saving 
adequately. Savings is a part of any person's financial security. It 
makes a difference between how a person thinks about his life, how he 
or she thinks about her job, and how they can live in the latter years. 
Most Americans today depend upon Social Security to finance their 
retirement as Social Security provides 73 percent of the retirement 
income of the typical household. That is not enough money for the 
average American to live on adequately. The truth is, they can have so 
much more so easily. I would like to talk about that today.
  To live the comfortable life that Americans deserve after 40-plus 
years of work, most need to supplement their Social Security income 
with additional savings, either through an employer-sponsored plan or 
their own savings plan. Yet despite this need, most Americans are not 
putting aside money for their future.
  Statistic after statistic tragically shows this. The personal savings 
rate in the United States, as this chart demonstrates, is at its lowest 
ebb since the Great Depression. It is a matter of national importance, 
as the Chairman of the Reserve Board and others have discussed.
  Look at this chart. It shows, since 1946, our savings rate has fallen 
steadily; in 2006, it is below zero. We are spending our savings now 
more than we are saving. It is a very troubling matter. We have to do 
something about it.
  After having averaged better than 7 percent throughout most of the 
post-World War II period, the personal savings rate dipped into 
negative territory by 2005 for the first time since 1933. This trend 
continued last year as the personal savings rate remained in negative 
territory for the first three quarters of 2006, with the fourth quarter 
numbers not yet reported.
  These statistics indicate that the average American household has 
been spending more during the last 2 years by either drawing down past 
savings or selling assets or borrowing.
  An alarming number of Americans also lack any financial resources 
beyond personal income. According to a Federal Reserve 2004 survey of 
consumer finances, 17 percent of all households have zero or a negative 
net worth, while 30 percent have a net worth of less than $10,000. This 
is especially a problem for African-American households, as they are 
more than twice as likely to have zero or a negative net worth.
  Perhaps most troubling, as this next chart demonstrates, almost half 
of the 152 million Americans who worked in 2004, 71.5 million 
employees, worked for an employer that did not sponsor a retirement 
plan of any kind. Another 17 million did not participate in the plan 
their employer offered. That means over 58 percent of working Americans 
in 2004 were not participating in an employer-sponsored retirement 
plan.
  Higher income people take care of their plans, but the average 
working American tends to focus his savings through his business and 
employer. In particular, younger workers are much less likely to 
participate in their employer's 401(k) plan, as only about one-third of 
workers age 21 to 30 participate in any retirement plan at work. Even 
if a worker is participating in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, 
he or she is unlikely to be saving sufficiently for the future.
  The average American worker holds nine jobs by the time they are 35, 
meaning that he or she often leaves the job before their retirement 
benefits become vested. In fact, frequently they cash it out. I had the 
opportunity to be on an airplane recently with a young man, 37, with 
two kids. He is beginning to work for the Federal Government. He is 
going to be saving through the thrift plan. I asked him what he had 
done before about savings. I told him the average person had nine jobs. 
He said: I had nine jobs. And when asked about savings, he said: I 
cashed in my plans. I just had a few hundred dollars in this one and a 
few hundred in that one. It didn't make sense to hold on to them. I 
cashed them in and paid my penalties. So at 35 with two kids, he has 
missed those first 10 or 15 or 20 years of work that he could have been 
saving and having the power of compound interest at work. About 45 
percent of the participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans 
cashed out when they changed jobs in 2004. A lot of plans don't offer 
savings until you have worked with the company 6 months or a year; 
some, 2 years.
  As this next chart shows, if we considered business and Government 
savings, we find that the United States has the lowest national savings 
rate of any of the group of 20 industrial nations. Whereas Japan's 
savings rate was 10.8 percent in 2003, Germany's was 5.4 percent, and 
India's was 15.4 percent, the United States had a net national savings 
rate of 1.6 percent in 2003. This is a World Bank chart. We can see we 
have the lowest rate on the chart. That is significant, not only for 
individuals, most importantly for individual working Americans, but 
also for our economy because economists tell us that this is a major 
detriment to our economy. In fact, all but two of the nations listed on 
the chart I just showed have a net national savings rate of more than 
twice that of the United States, if not more than 10 times our savings 
rate.
  The lack of personal savings is a particular problem in my State of 
Alabama. An A.G. Edwards study rated Alabama the Nation's 46th lowest 
savings State. This lack of personal savings is a national tragedy, as 
few Americans are putting money aside to ensure their financial 
security upon retirement, during a time where we have growth and 
relative prosperity in our Nation. I will repeat that. Think about the 
tragedy that is occurring when people are not setting aside even a 
small percentage of their salary, when if they do, they could retire 
with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a savings account at age 65. 
This is very realistic. It is very possible. I will talk about it a 
little bit more in a minute. But as anybody knows who has studied the 
compound interest factor, the earlier you save, the more important it 
is. So it is a special tragedy when we see this lack of savings. For 
example, according to an analysis by Fidelity Investments, if one is 25 
years old and has 40 years until retirement, every additional dollar a 
person saves would be worth $8.14 at retirement, adjusted for 
inflation. So a dollar saved, if you are 25, is worth $8.14 at 
retirement.
  Increasing savings also allows Americans to achieve greater control 
and choice over their lives. According to the Center for Social 
Development, the presence of savings is even associated with improved 
health and psychological well-being.
  The benefits of increasing our Nation's personal savings rate go 
beyond the financial security of individual families. By increasing 
household savings, we will be providing the investment capital our 
Nation needs to ensure long-term economic growth and create more and 
better jobs. Increasing savings will allow the United States to depend 
less on foreign capital. America's current account deficit, the amount 
of domestic investment financed by borrowing from abroad, hit a record 
high of over 6 percent of GDP in 2005. Foreign capital can sustain our 
economy in the short run, but I don't know if we can depend on that in 
the long run. Moreover, we, as a country, benefit from the interest and 
dividends our assets generate when we own them.
  So what can we do to increase personal savings for retirement? I will 
soon be introducing a bill to help solve our savings problem by 
creating a national savings system that would give every American the 
opportunity to retire a half-millionaire. Not a chicken in every pot, 
not a car in every garage, we desire that every American be able to 
retire with half a million dollars in the bank. That is possible, 
realistic, so easily within our grasp if we set forth the right plans 
today.
  Under the plan I will be introducing, individual savings accounts, or 
PLUS Accounts--for Portable, Lifelong, Universal Savings accounts--
would be created for every working American. One percent of every 
paycheck earned would be deposited automatically, pretax, into 
individual PLUS Accounts, along with a 1-percent match from every 
employer, and invested in a new system like our Federal thrift system, 
a new 401(k)-type system. Under this plan, a savings account would be 
established for every American at birth, endowing these accounts with 
$1,000.

[[Page S895]]

  This is a proposal which the British are already doing. The UK has a 
plan similar to this plan. They are very excited about how well it is 
working. Savings among families in Britain has gone up 40 percent since 
they started this plan. It has educated people to the power of savings 
and compound interest.
  Senators, such as Mr. Schumer, Mr. Santorum, and others, have 
previously offered legislation of this kind.
  So these funds contributed to PLUS Accounts would be the legal 
property of each account holder, but they could not be spent until age 
65. Any funds remaining when an individual died would be passed on as 
they chose to their spouse, children, grandchildren, or any one of the 
holder's choosing, including a favorite charity. Account assets would 
be protected from creditors and would not be considered in determining 
eligibility for any federally funded benefits or in calculating estate 
tax liability.
  Finally, my plan would simply serve as a supplement to Social 
Security, not altering the Social Security system in any way. I 
supported the President's idea of changes in Social Security. I thought 
it made sense. We did not have the votes to do that in this Congress. 
So I say, let's do it on top of Social Security.

  I believe this can work. If we begin PLUS Accounts at birth and 
require a portion of every paycheck to be invested, the first check you 
get, the first job you go to work at, the average American citizen 
could retire with a rather sizable nest egg. For example, given a 
reasonable rate of return, someone who makes $46,000 a year--the median 
household income in 2005--and only contributes 1 percent of each 
paycheck would retire with almost $300,000 in the bank. Think about 
that. You put in 1 percent, your employer puts in 1 percent. You have a 
$1,000 deposit at birth. With no more money put in there other than 
what you pay out, you would retire with $300,000 in your account. What 
a remarkable and great country this is. At age 65, this account could 
be converted to an annuity that would pay the recipient $2,100 per 
month for life, which is probably more than they will get from Social 
Security. If the same individual were to contribute 3 percent, if they 
would just contribute 3 percent of their paycheck over the course of 
their working life, they could expect to retire with half a million 
dollars in their account--enough to purchase an annuity that pays over 
$3,700 per month for life, if they chose, or they could simply live off 
the income of it and have assets for their children or the charity they 
chose. This is if the company, the employer, only puts in 1 percent. 
But many employers today offer more than that.
  I have to say, I was talking with Senator Corker from Tennessee, a 
successful businessman, about this issue. He said: I believe in 
savings. We have a savings plan in my company that our people all sign 
up for.
  I said: Tell me about it.
  He said: We put in 10 percent, if they will put in 5 percent.
  Think about that. That is what Senator Corker does. A lot of 
businesses would do this. A lot of businesses would put in more. Many 
already are, but many businesses would step up to the plate and put in 
more than 1 percent. But if the employee put in 3 percent and the 
employer put in 1, at age 65, it would be worth half a million dollars, 
if you are operating at median income. That is remarkable.
  Thus, I would say that if we care about working Americans, if we 
really want to do something historic, I believe we have an opportunity, 
a bipartisan opportunity to establish a savings program for Americans. 
That program should be modeled, in my view, although I am open to other 
suggestions, on the Federal thrift plan that our employees admire so 
much and they value so much, you couldn't take it from them with a 
crowbar. The Federal employees like it. They pay Social Security, and 
they get a thrift plan where the Government puts in 5 percent if they 
put in 5 percent. And they can put in more than that. Many of these 
young people working today who work a career in the Government are 
going to retire with a very sizable nest egg, something they own, an 
asset they have earned themselves from their work, and they will be 
able to retire comfortably, whereas otherwise they may be dependent on 
Social Security.
  It is a national tragedy that we are not educating our children to 
save. It is a national tragedy that our savings rate has fallen below 
zero. I believe we can do better. I am offering this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution to have the Senate think about it, to affirm its 
commitment to increasing savings. As we go forward in the weeks to 
come, we could be talking about the various proposals that are out 
there to actually make this happen.
  I see Senator Kennedy is off the floor. As I understand, we will set 
the vote on this resolution for an appropriate time.
  Hopefully, we will have strong support from my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 119

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 119.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 119.

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam 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 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 
            income tax increase on Social Security benefits)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPEAL OF 1993 INCOME TAX INCREASE ON SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY BENEFITS.

       (a) Restoration of Prior Law Formula.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 86 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad 
     retirement benefits) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Gross income for the taxable year of any 
     taxpayer described in subsection (b) (notwithstanding section 
     207 of the Social Security Act) includes social security 
     benefits in an amount equal to the lesser of--
       ``(1) one-half of the social security benefits received 
     during the taxable year, or
       ``(2) one-half of the excess described in subsection 
     (b)(1).''.
       (b) Repeal of Adjusted Base Amount.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 86 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Base Amount.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `base amount' means--
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this subsection, 
     $25,000,
       ``(2) $32,000 in the case of a joint return, and
       ``(3) zero in the case of a taxpayer who--
       ``(A) is married as of the close of the taxable year 
     (within the meaning of section 7703) but does not file a 
     joint return for such year, and
       ``(B) does not live apart from his spouse at all times 
     during the taxable year.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 871(a)(3) is amended by 
     striking ``85 percent'' and inserting ``50 percent''.
       (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(e)(1) of the Social 
     Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 98-21) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``(A) There'' and inserting ``There'';
       (ii) by striking ``(i)'' immediately following ``amounts 
     equivalent to''; and
       (iii) by striking ``, less (ii)'' and all that follows and 
     inserting a period.
       (B) Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (B).
       (C) Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
     by striking subparagraph (B) and by redesignating 
     subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (D) Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
     in the first sentence by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
       (2) Subsection (c)(1).--The amendment made by subsection 
     (c)(1) shall apply to benefits paid after December 31, 2007.
       (3) Subsection (c)(2).--The amendments made by subsection 
     (c)(2) shall apply to tax liabilities for taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2007.

     SEC. __. MAINTENANCE OF TRANSFERS TO HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST 
                   FUND.

       There are hereby appropriated to the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund established under section 1817 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i) amounts equal to the 
     reduction in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the 
     enactment of this Act. Amounts appropriated by the preceding 
     sentence shall be transferred from the general fund at such 
     times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent 
     possible the transfers

[[Page S896]]

     which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had this Act not 
     been enacted.

  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, this is an important amendment for many 
of our seniors because it deals with the taxes on Social Security 
benefits. I have brought this issue before this Chamber before, so it 
should be familiar to many of my colleagues.
  When the Social Security program was created, benefits were not 
taxed. However, in 1983, Congress changed the rules of the game by 
passing legislation to begin taxing up to 50 percent of a senior's 
Social Security benefit if their income was over $25,000 for a single 
individual or $32,000 for a couple.
  Many seniors across the country were hit with a tax they never 
anticipated and were forced to send a portion of their Social Security 
benefits back to the IRS.
  In 1993, Congress felt taxing 50 percent of benefits wasn't good 
enough. That year, Congress passed and President Clinton signed a bill 
that allows 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefits to be 
taxed if their income is above $34,000 for a single and $44,000 for a 
couple. This was known as the ``Clinton senior citizens tax.''
  The additional money this tax raises doesn't even go into helping 
Social Security solvency; instead, it goes into a Medicare Part A 
program.
  I was a Member of the House of Representatives in 1993, and I opposed 
this tax then and I oppose this tax today, 14 years later.
  Some people think this tax only affects ``rich'' seniors, but that is 
not the case. In fact, the income thresholds both for the 50-percent 
tax and the 85-percent tax haven't changed since they were first 
enacted back in 1983 and 1993. This means more and more seniors are 
paying these taxes every year.
  In fact, it is estimated that of the 40 million Social Security 
beneficiaries, about 15 million--or 39 percent--of seniors pay taxes on 
their Social Security benefits. Of these, it is estimated that over 9.5 
million pay taxes on up to 85 percent of their Social Security benefit.
  On one hand, we tell seniors to plan and save for retirement and, on 
the other hand, we tax them for doing that.
  In the past, there have been efforts by Members of Congress, 
including myself, to remove this unfair tax. During debate on the 
Senate 2006 budget resolution, I offered an amendment that provided 
Congress with the budget resources to remove this unfair tax on 
benefits. My amendment passed 55 to 45. Unfortunately, the tax 
reconciliation instructions were scaled back during conference.
  Today, I am offering another amendment to finally repeal the 1993 tax 
on Social Security benefits. This means the 85-percent tax tier would 
be eliminated and the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that 
could be taxed would be 50 percent. Millions of seniors would be able 
to keep more of their Social Security benefits, and Congress gets an 
opportunity to end this unfair tax on seniors.
  It is also important to point out that the Medicare Program is not 
harmed by my amendment. As I already said, this tax funds the Medicare 
program. Therefore, my amendment transfers to Medicare any amount it 
would have received due to this tax from the general fund.
  This was an unfair tax on our seniors, and it is time we repeal it. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair for the 
time. We will look for a time later to bring up the amendment again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. I commend Senator Kennedy for his 
leadership on this issue. This important legislation would increase the 
Federal minimum wage from the abysmally low $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an 
hour over a 2-year period.
  Let us make no mistake about it, this bill will benefit millions of 
workers and their families. It is very long overdue. Anyone who works 
40 hours a week in the United States of America should not be living in 
abject poverty. It is a moral disgrace that Congress has not increased 
the minimum wage since 1997. Yes, Congress has provided hundreds of 
billions of dollars in tax breaks to people who don't need it, but 
somehow, over a 10-year period, Congress has not reached out to 
millions of workers making the minimum wage and raised that wage.
  Today's minimum wage workers have less buying power than minimum wage 
workers did back in 1955, when Dwight Eisenhower was President. Simply 
put, a job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in poverty.
  At the current Federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, a person 
working full time makes less than $11,000 per year before taxes, which 
is approximately $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of 
three.
  Moreover, while the cost of living has skyrocketed, the value of the 
minimum wage has eroded by over 20 percent since the last increase. 
Today, nearly 13 million workers, 10 percent of the United States 
workforce, would directly or indirectly benefit from a raise in the 
minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; 5.5 million workers would benefit 
directly, 7.4 million workers would benefit indirectly, and more than 
60 percent of those who would benefit are women.
  In addition to workers, millions of American families would benefit 
from a raise in the minimum wage, including nearly 6 million children 
who would see their parents' earnings increase.
  But some will argue that an increase in the minimum wage will 
primarily benefit teenagers. I think the evidence is quite strong that 
that is not the case. Further, recently, over 650 economists, including 
Nobel Prize winners and past presidents of the American Economics 
Association, released a statement calling for a raise in the minimum 
wage. They confirm that ``a modest increase in the minimum wage would 
improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the 
adverse effects that critics have claimed. . . . The weight of the 
evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have very 
little or no effect on employment.''
  Moreover, and interestingly, a recent Gallup Poll revealed that 86 
percent of small business owners today do not believe that an increase 
in the minimum wage would hurt their business. Three-fourths of small 
business owners thought a 10-percent increase would have no effect on 
them. In fact, nearly half of those polled thought the minimum wage 
should be increased.
  While I believe it is important to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an 
hour, it is clear to me that much more needs to be done. We should see 
this increase--long overdue--in the minimum wage as simply a start to 
address the disgraceful reality that more and more of our fellow 
Americans are living in poverty, and it is an outrage that today in the 
United States of America we have, by far, the highest rate of childhood 
poverty in the industrialized world.

  In the last 10 years, what we have seen in our country is a 
proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. We have seen the 
wealthiest people become ever wealthier. But what we have also seen, 
since President Bush has been in office, is that over 5 million more 
Americans have slipped into poverty. The rich become richer, the poor 
become poorer, and the middle class continues to shrink. In my view, 
raising the minimum wage is an important start in attempting to address 
the crisis of poverty in America, but it is clear to me that we have to 
do much more. Among many other things we have to do, we must address 
the reality in America today that we are losing millions of good-paying 
manufacturing jobs and good-paying white-collar information technology 
jobs because of our disastrous trade agreements.
  The time is now to begin to fundamentally rethink our trade 
agreements so we can begin to create good-paying jobs here in the 
United States, so our young people will be able to make it to the 
middle class rather than to continue to struggle year after year in 
poverty.
  We have to take a hard look at the National Labor Relations Act and 
the National Labor Relations Board, which today make it increasingly 
hard for workers to form unions. If workers are able to collectively 
negotiate a contract, very often the wages they get will be 
substantially higher than if they did not have a union. So in raising 
the minimum wage, what we are doing today is saying to millions of 
workers who are struggling desperately to keep

[[Page S897]]

their heads above water, we understand what you are going through. We 
understand it is an outrage that for a 10-year period this Congress has 
not raised the minimum wage, and the purchasing value of the minimum 
wage has declined. But I hope that what we are doing this week is 
simply a start to address the very serious economic problems facing not 
only low-income Americans but the middle class as well.
  I hope that this Senate, this Congress, will begin focusing its 
attention on the decline of the middle class, the increase of poverty, 
and come up with economic and fiscal policies that benefit all 
Americans and not just the wealthy and large multinational 
corporations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          New Strategy in Iraq

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, the reason I rise to take the floor is 
this afternoon--I think the Presiding Officer was present in the Armed 
Services Committee hearing when General Petraeus testified about the 
new strategy in Iraq. I hope that over time more Americans will be 
familiar with him and his view of what we can do to go forward.
  In his testimony, General Petraeus clearly indicated we have made a 
lot of mistakes in Iraq. We never had enough troops to secure the 
country, and the debaathification program basically was a mistake. 
Other agencies involved in nationbuilding have not done their part. 
Militias have grown. The biggest event in the sectarian violence was 
the bombing of the Shia Golden Dome Mosque, and since that event, which 
was al-Qaida-inspired, we have been going backward instead of forward 
and the sectarian violence in Baghdad has gotten worse.
  But General Petraeus believes this new strategy is not more people 
doing the same thing. It is a fundamentally different shift in policy. 
I agree with him and hope the country will listen closely to what he 
says. I have a lot of confidence in General Petraeus. I intend to 
support him.
  I will not vote for any resolution that declares a strategy of 
failure before he has a chance to implement it because if we do that, 
it is going to be a very bad sendoff for our troops going into battle. 
It will embolden the enemy and weaken the moderates we eventually have 
to rely on in the Mideast to help us in the war on terror.
  The strategy will be similar to this: We will be increasing 
reinforcements on all fronts. We have had enough military people in 
Iraq to clear territory but never hold it. We never lost a battle with 
insurgents. We can clear out a town or sector of Baghdad, but once we 
leave, we turn it over to an immature Iraqi Army or corrupt police 
force.
  What we are doing by having 21,500 more troops is it doubles the 
combat capability of American forces in Baghdad to 17,500, and that 
will allow some soldiers to stay behind with the Iraqis to hold 
territory. Hold for what purpose? To give the political leadership in 
Iraq a chance to reconcile their differences through the political 
process.
  Ask General Petraeus: Do you believe Iraq is part of the overall 
global war on terror?
  I do.
  If you believe it is a Vietnam which is a lost cause and not worth 
fighting for and we need to get out, don't pass a resolution condemning 
the action. Cut off funding. If you believe it is part of the global 
war on terror, as I do, we need to fight to win. I think that is 
exactly what we are trying to do. We are going to reinforce the 
military so we can hold, to give the Iraqi leadership a chance to 
reconcile the problems politically. I don't believe any political group 
could find democracy or common ground in this much violence. It is hard 
enough for us to find a solution to immigration and none of us being 
shot at. Can you imagine trying to reconcile a country oppressed by 
dictators for over 30 years with this level of violence?
  If we can control the violence, I think it will lead to a better 
political result. They have to share the oil revenues with the Sunnis. 
The Sunnis have to have something to fight for, not against. That has 
to happen. At the end of the day, a million troops won't change Baghdad 
or Iraq if the Iraqi people are not willing to make the accommodations 
they need to make. They are under siege. They need reinforcements.
  On the economic front, 70 percent of our casualties come from 
improvised explosive devices, somebody planting a bomb along the side 
of the road. Some people are planting those bombs because they don't 
have a job. They don't have any way to support their family, so they 
are taking money from the insurgents. Let's create an economy to give 
them an option other than planting bombs.
  Secondly, some people are planting bombs because there is no 
downside. Once you get caught, you get released. We need a robust rule 
of law. If you want to change the way our troops are treated in Iraq, 
put people in jail for a very long time for attacking our troops. That 
will be a deterrent.
  Finally, more military presence will put pressure on those making 
these explosive devices. This is a surge on all fronts. He is confident 
this plan will work. He understands the Iraqi political leadership has 
to do their part. The Iraqi military has to do their part. But the 
sectarian violence has come about because al-Qaida hit the motherload 
when they blew up the Golden Mosque. We cannot let al-Qaida win in 
destabilizing Iraq. They went to Iraq behind us because they understand 
that the consequences of success in Iraq are not confined to Iraq. If 
you can have a stable, functioning democracy that is tolerant, then it 
will spread to other areas of the Mideast and will be a mighty blow to 
the al-Qaida agenda.
  We need to understand that a failed state in Iraq creates chaos for 
not just us but the world. Iran becomes a big winner. The south of Iraq 
becomes a puppet state of Iran. We could have a war between Turkey and 
the Kurds in the north. And if there is a bloodbath in Bagdad, which 
there surely will be if we leave, then Sunni Arab nations are going to 
get involved, and the whole region becomes much more unstable.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to General Petraeus and ask the 
question: Do you have confidence in this man to do what he says he can 
do? And if the answer is yes, don't undermine him before he leaves. 
Give him the resources he needs. If you don't have confidence in him 
and our military and our leadership to change policy and strategy and 
be successful, don't let one more person go to Iraq to get killed or 
wounded in a lost cause. You should have the courage of your 
convictions to cut off funding. A middle-ground solution is the worst 
of all worlds.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


               Amendments Nos. 152, 153, and 154 En Bloc

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Ensign, I call up 
amendments Nos. 152, 153, and 154.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Ensign, 
     proposes amendments numbered No. 152, 153, and 154 en bloc.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 152

    (Purpose: To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and 
         preserve the integrity of the Social Security system)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PRECLUSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS PRIOR TO 
                   ENUMERATION.

       (a) Insured Status.--Section 214 of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 414) is amended by adding at the end, the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no quarter of 
     coverage shall be credited for purposes of this section if, 
     with respect to any individual who is assigned a social 
     security account number on or after the date of enactment of 
     the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, such quarter of coverage 
     is earned prior to the year in which such social security 
     account number is assigned.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any 
     quarter of coverage earned by an individual who, at such time 
     such quarter of coverage is earned, satisfies the criterion 
     specified in subsection (c)(2).''.
       (b) Benefit Computation.--Section 215(e) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 415(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page S898]]

       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) in computing the average indexed monthly earnings of 
     an individual who is assigned a social security account 
     number on or after the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum 
     Wage Act of 2007, there shall not be counted any wages or 
     self-employment income for which no quarter of coverage may 
     be credited to such individual as a result of the application 
     of section 214(d).''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 153

(Purpose: To preserve and protect Social Security benefits of American 
   workers, including those making minimum wage, and to help ensure 
   greater congressional oversight of the Social Security system by 
requiring that both Houses of Congress approve a totalization agreement 
before the agreement, giving foreign workers Social Security benefits, 
                          can go into effect)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TRANSMITTAL AND APPROVAL OF TOTALIZATION AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 233(e) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 433(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) Any agreement to establish a totalization 
     arrangement which is entered into with another country under 
     this section shall enter into force with respect to the 
     United States if (and only if)--
       ``(A) the President, at least 90 calendar days before the 
     date on which the President enters into the agreement, 
     notifies each House of Congress of the President's intention 
     to enter into the agreement, and promptly thereafter 
     publishes notice of such intention in the Federal Register,
       ``(B) the President transmits the text of such agreement to 
     each House of Congress as provided in paragraph (2), and
       ``(C) an approval resolution regarding such agreement has 
     passed both Houses of Congress and has been enacted into law.
       ``(2)(A) Whenever an agreement referred to in paragraph (1) 
     is entered into, the President shall transmit to each House 
     of Congress a document setting forth the final legal text of 
     such agreement and including a report by the President in 
     support of such agreement. The President's report shall 
     include the following:
       ``(i) An estimate by the Chief Actuary of the Social 
     Security Administration of the effect of the agreement, in 
     the short term and in the long term, on the receipts and 
     disbursements under the social security system established by 
     this title.
       ``(ii) A statement of any administrative action proposed to 
     implement the agreement and how such action will change or 
     affect existing law.
       ``(iii) A statement describing whether and how the 
     agreement changes provisions of an agreement previously 
     negotiated.
       ``(iv) A statement describing how and to what extent the 
     agreement makes progress in achieving the purposes, policies, 
     and objectives of this title.
       ``(v) An estimate by the Chief Actuary of the Social 
     Security Administration, working in consultation with the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, of the number of 
     individuals who may become eligible for any benefits under 
     this title or who may otherwise be affected by the agreement.
       ``(vi) An assessment of the integrity of the retirement 
     data and records (including birth, death, and marriage 
     records) of the other country that is the subject of the 
     agreement.
       ``(vii) An assessment of the ability of such country to 
     track and monitor recipients of benefits under such 
     agreement.
       ``(B) If any separate agreement or other understanding with 
     another country (whether oral or in writing) relating to an 
     agreement to establish a totalization arrangement under this 
     section is not disclosed to Congress in the transmittal to 
     Congress under this paragraph of the agreement to establish a 
     totalization arrangement, then such separate agreement or 
     understanding shall not be considered to be part of the 
     agreement approved by Congress under this section and shall 
     have no force and effect under United States law.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `approval 
     resolution' means a joint resolution, the matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the proposed 
     agreement entered into pursuant to section 233 of the Social 
     Security Act between the United States and _______ 
     establishing totalization arrangements between the social 
     security system established by title II of such Act and the 
     social security system of _______, transmitted to Congress by 
     the President on ______, is hereby approved.', the first two 
     blanks therein being filled with the name of the country with 
     which the United States entered into the agreement, and the 
     third blank therein being filled with the date of the 
     transmittal of the agreement to Congress.
       ``(4) Whenever a document setting forth an agreement 
     entered into under this section and the President's report in 
     support of the agreement is transmitted to Congress pursuant 
     to paragraph (2), copies of such document shall be delivered 
     to both Houses of Congress on the same day and shall be 
     delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives if the 
     House is not in session and to the Secretary of the Senate if 
     the Senate is not in session.
       ``(5) On the day on which a document setting forth the 
     agreement is transmitted to the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate pursuant to paragraph (1), an approval resolution 
     with respect to such agreement shall be introduced (by 
     request) in the House by the majority leader of the House, 
     for himself or herself and the minority leader of the House, 
     or by Members of the House designated by the majority leader 
     and minority leader of the House; and shall be introduced (by 
     request) in the Senate by the majority leader of the Senate, 
     for himself or herself and the minority leader of the Senate, 
     or by Members of the Senate designated by the majority leader 
     and minority leader of the Senate. If either House is not in 
     session on the day on which such an agreement is transmitted, 
     the approval resolution with respect to such agreement shall 
     be introduced in that House, as provided in the preceding 
     sentence, on the first day thereafter on which that House is 
     in session. The resolution introduced in the House of 
     Representatives shall be referred to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means and the resolution introduced in the Senate shall 
     be referred to the Committee on Finance.''.
       (b) Additional Reports and Evaluations.--Section 233 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 433) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Biennial SSA Report on Impact of Totalization 
     Agreements.--
       ``(1) Report.--For any totalization agreement transmitted 
     to Congress on or after January 1, 2007, the Commissioner of 
     Social Security shall submit a report to Congress and the 
     Comptroller General that--
       ``(A) compares the estimates contained in the report 
     submitted to Congress under clauses (i) and (v) of subsection 
     (e)(2)(A) with respect to that agreement with the actual 
     number of individuals affected by the agreement and the 
     actual effect of the agreement on social security system 
     receipts and disbursements; and
       ``(B) contains recommendations for adjusting the methods 
     used to make the estimates.
       ``(2) Dates for submission.--The report required under this 
     subsection shall be provided not later than 2 years after the 
     effective date of the totalization agreement that is the 
     subject of the report and biennially thereafter.
       ``(g) GAO Evaluation and Report.--
       ``(1) Evaluation of initial report on impact of 
     totalization agreements.--With respect to each initial report 
     regarding a totalization agreement submitted under subsection 
     (f), the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct an evaluation of the report that includes--
       ``(A) an evaluation of the procedures used for making the 
     estimates required by subsection (e)(2)(A);
       ``(B) an evaluation of the procedures used for determining 
     the actual number of individuals affected by the agreement 
     and the effects of the totalization agreement on receipts and 
     disbursements under the social security system; and
       ``(C) such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     submission of an initial report regarding a totalization 
     agreement under subsection (f), the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to Congress a report setting forth the results of the 
     evaluation conducted under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Data collection.--The Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall collect and maintain the data necessary for the 
     Comptroller General of the United States to conduct the 
     evaluation required by paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to agreements establishing 
     totalization arrangements entered into under section 233 of 
     the Social Security Act which are transmitted to Congress on 
     or after January 1, 2007.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 154

         (Purpose: To improve access to affordable health care)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NON-GROUP HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLAN PREMIUMS 
                   OPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 223(d)(2)(C) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by striking the 
     period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting ``, or'', and 
     by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) a high deductible health plan, other than a group 
     health plan (as defined in section 5000(b)(1)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.


                     Amendment No. 106, as Modified

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, in a while, we will take some action on 
Senator Sessions' amendment. I would like to make a couple comments on 
that amendment before we get to that point. This might be an 
appropriate time.
  Last year, Congress undertook the most sweeping changes to pension 
law since the enactment of ERISA. It was a major milestone and resulted 
in the most comprehensive change to workers' and their families' 
pension and retirement savings in the past 32 years.
  The Pension Protection Act could not have been enacted without 
bipartisan cooperation, but it took more than Republicans and Democrats 
working together. The Pension Protection

[[Page S899]]

Act resulted from a deep commitment toward cooperation between the 
Finance Committee, which oversaw the tax provisions of the bill, and 
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which oversaw the 
pensions provisions.
  On the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we had 
previously taken a strong bipartisan look at retirement issues and 
retirement savings as part of our pension oversight duties. The new 
chairman of the committee has stated he will continue the committee's 
strong pension oversight responsibilities in order to protect and 
strengthen the retirement savings so that workers and their families 
may prosper long into their retirement years.
  The sense-of-the-Senate resolution before us expresses the sentiment 
that saving for retirement is important. We all agree with that point. 
The fact is that savings opportunities are available almost everywhere, 
but many workers do not take advantage of it. By this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution, we are not advocating any particular retirement 
programs or initiatives over others on the books already or proposed to 
be introduced. We are simply saying that people ought to save enough to 
maintain their standard of living during their golden years, and they 
ought to invest prudently so that their savings will be safe when they 
do retire.
  Better financial education and investment advice is needed. Automatic 
enrollment rules that were enacted in the Pension Protection Act will 
help people learn to save. New default investment regulations, when 
finalized, will help too.
  In that respect, progress has been made in saving for retirement, but 
much needs to be done.
  I am happy to join with my colleagues in reiterating the commitment 
by supporting the sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I expect we will vote at a quarter to 5 
or so on the Sessions amendment. I will vote in favor and urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor.
  Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules for a lifetime 
deserve a secure retirement. They deserve to be able to enjoy their 
golden years, spend time with their families, and rest after a lifetime 
of hard work. We need to be sure they have the income they need for 
gasoline, prescription drugs, and other needs of daily living.
  As my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, pointed out, we passed a 
comprehensive bill last year. It was the result of years of work by the 
HELP and Finance Committees. That work took steps to strengthen our 
pension system and increase retirement savings, but we still have a 
long way to go. Half of Americans have no type of pension plan at all 
in their workplace. And today, Americans have negative savings rates 
for the first time since the Great Depression.
  In order to guarantee a secure retirement for Americans, we need to 
ensure that the three legs of retirement security are all there: Social 
Security, private pensions, and personal savings. Each one of these 
legs plays a vital role, and we need to strengthen all three--Social 
Security, private pensions, and personal savings.
  I know the Senator from Alabama has proposed ideas for creating and 
expanding personal savings. Our staff has been talking about these 
ideas and many proposals are being developed by Senator Baucus, Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Conrad, and others. I look forward to continuing to 
work with Senator Enzi, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Byrd on our 
Retirement Security Subcommittee.
  This is an area of enormous concern for working families in this 
country--what is going to happen during their golden years. They look 
forward to Social Security, and we are going to have to address that 
issue. We are going to have to address the Medicare issue, which will 
begin to run out of funds in, I believe, 2018.
  We know that defined benefit programs have been collapsing over the 
years, and 401(k)s that have tried to fill in have not played the role 
that defined benefit plans played in terms of giving answers to 
workers, and we have seen that the personal savings accounts brought 
out during the discussions by Senator Enzi and Senator Sessions have 
been in rapid decline.
  The indicators are all moving in the wrong direction, in terms of a 
firm, secure, dependable, and reliable retirement program for working 
families in this country. We should find ways to work to encourage a 
change in that policy.
  At the appropriate time, when the Senator comes back, we will dispose 
of the Senator's amendment. We are at an appropriate time.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:45 p.m. today, the 
Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Session's amendment 
No. 106, as modified; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
and controlled between Senator Kennedy and Senator Sessions prior to 
the vote; and that no second-degree amendment be in order to the 
amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, too often when we debate the issue of 
minimum wage, we focus on abstract ideas and proposals and fail to 
consider the impact of our actions on the small business community that 
lives and breathes in the real world. I appreciate the cooperation with 
Senator Reid and others, focused around Senator Baucus and Senator 
Grassley, working in a very bipartisan way to put together a package 
that would help to relieve some of the impact of the minimum wage 
increase. I hope everyone has noticed that in the minimum wage debate 
we have been having, the debate has not been over whether to raise the 
minimum wage. The debate has been on what we can do to alleviate some 
of the impact on small business. I hope that is the way we can continue 
the discussion on this, too.
  I mentioned earlier today that you need to meet some of these small 
businessmen. They are in your neighborhood. You can meet them easily. 
They run the laundry, corner grocery, little retail stores. For the 
most part they are families who are eking out a living while they are 
taking on a lot of risk. They do have these moments that they wonder 
why they undertook that risk and how they are going to continue to fund 
that risk. Sometimes they are paying employees when they can't even 
afford to pay themselves, and their families are relying on the 
business to support them as a family, too, particularly considering all 
the risks they are taking.
  Sometimes they are forced to come up with additional funds to pay 
their workers on what we will be mandating. Those funds do not come 
from a money tree or some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They 
come out of the pockets of the Nation's small businessmen. It is the 
penalty they pay for taking the risks associated with running a small 
business.
  The first hearing I held in Wyoming was as part of the Small Business 
Committee. We had a hearing on some of the problems of small business. 
When it was over, one of the reporters came up and said: You only had 
about 100 small businessmen attend this. Why do you suppose it was such 
a poor turnout?
  I said: That wasn't a poor turnout from small business. If small 
business had an extra employee to send to a day's conference, they 
would fire him. They can't afford extra people.
  With that realization, it was a good turnout and there were a lot of 
good suggestions. I always like to go back to Wyoming and meet with the 
people and actually talk to the guy on the end of the shovel because he 
usually has the best suggestions for changing the shovel. I found that 
to be true of the small businessmen.
  This afternoon we agreed to an amendment that will provide for easier 
compliance with Federal rules and regulations, and I appreciate the 
bipartisan action that was taken. That will make a huge difference to 
small businessmen.

[[Page S900]]

  We could consider that the action we are about to take will be making 
it bad business for people to hire people who need some help and 
support in developing their skills by that method, making them higher 
wage workers. That cannot help but cost some people their jobs. In 
other instances, the hours they need will be cut back, hours that they 
need to get a good paycheck.
  We cannot leave the floor today feeling better about having helped 
ease the income strain for many of the workers of our States but having 
left the employers wondering how to pay for the increases we have 
mandated. Once again, we have the best of intentions, but, once again, 
we have to remember one simple rule: It is not our money. We are, once 
again, reaching into the pockets of the small businessmen in our 
community and taking their money and telling them the amount of wages 
they will pay their employees without regard to the talents and 
abilities of the employees they can hire.
  We have this huge job training corps out there. It is called small 
businesses. They take people who don't have the skills that are 
necessary for the small business they are operating and they teach them 
how to run a cash register, how to count change, how to interact with a 
customer, how to dress appropriately.
  You might think these are all things that might be covered in school 
classes, and they are, if you take the right classes. But there are a 
lot of people who not only don't take the right classes, they drop out 
of school. They need to earn a living and they have to start somewhere 
earning a living. To earn that living they have to have some training, 
some basic job training. A lot of these small businesses are where they 
get that basic business training, and they kind of get it for free. The 
businessmen provide that information, and most of the people in the 
minimum wage level move up rather quickly. As they learn those skills, 
they get paid more. I know a lot of businesses where they have the 
minimum wage situation that lasts about 3 weeks if the people learn 
enough to advance so they can actually wait on the customer.
  What we are talking about is a blanket increase that will warm the 
hearts of those who lack the skills for higher wage jobs as it leaves 
the employers out in the cold, unless we do the Reid package. Any 
increase in the minimum wage must be offset by a small business tax 
incentive package.
  As a former small business owner of mom-and-pop shoe stores, let me 
walk through the realities of how business owners may address a 
mandated Federal minimum wage hike. Raising the minimum wage to $7.50 
imposes a 41-percent increase in labor costs for a small employer with 
minimum wage workers. Every employer must face the very real issue of 
how he or she will deal with this increase in the costs and still meet 
the payroll week after week.
  These are very real and difficult questions that impact our smallest 
employers most heavily. These increases must be paid for by employers 
and, as I said before, the money doesn't grow on trees. An employer 
must make hard decisions about how to meet these increased payroll 
obligations.
  When costs go up, most businesses first look to cut expenses. The 
choices they have can be difficult and have often already been used. To 
meet higher mandated payroll costs, a small employer may be forced to 
consider cutting back on benefits such as health insurance, retirement, 
or leave plans--although a lot of small businesses can't afford to 
provide those in the first place.
  It is simply too easy to forget that fringe benefits have a 
significant cost. Most employees don't realize the benefit they are 
getting when they get those. If a small employer has to reduce expenses 
to meet payroll, those are often the costs that go.

  I know of a video store--I was talking to a young man who works in 
the Senate now, and he used to work in the Senate and part-time in a 
video store. When the minimum wage went up last time, what the video 
store did was instead of having two people at the store at the close of 
business, they only had one, and only having one isn't nearly as safe 
as having two. But that was the choice that the owner had to make in 
order to be able to meet the payroll.
  We have seen some charts where, in States where there has been a 
raise in minimum wage, there has been an increase in number of jobs as 
well. I appreciate those charts and believe those charts to be 
accurate. What those charts are doing, though, is aggregating for the 
entire State. What we are doing is imposing this on one business at a 
time, one employee at a time. It really gets down to as local as 
politics ever gets. Those small businessmen believe that individuals 
matter, that people matter, and they are forced into some of these 
choices. There are not a whole lot of ways they can compensate for the 
change.
  I have a chart that shows how to cut costs when there are none to 
cut. This came from the Washington Post. It says:

       We're at the bottom. If the minimum wage went up, I don't 
     know how we would make the cuts to cover it . . . the 
     employee said.

  The lone salaried employee, she works 80 hours a week to make up for 
the lack of workers. ``I have mixed feelings,'' she continued. ``I know 
that people can't afford to live on $5.15 an hour. But on the business 
side, small businesses can't afford to pay it.''
  There are examples like that that are real-life situations that do 
make it difficult. That is the lone employee in a store.
  Beyond cutting fringe benefits, small businesses may need to consider 
cutting back work hours, eliminating overtime, or laying off workers. 
Such actions are traditional and often necessary responses to meeting 
increased costs--not just the increased costs of the minimum wage. 
Unfortunately, these actions ultimately hurt the very workers the 
minimum wage increase is designed to help.
  Some would say raise the prices. That is not always possible in the 
short run. In the long run there may be some flexibility because this 
is going to be imposed on everybody and will drive up prices. Of 
course, when it drives up prices, it kind of eliminates the benefit of 
the increase in the minimum wage. In the real world, small employers 
have to consider these types of options to cope with mandated increases 
in wages. Small business owners who themselves favor a minimum wage 
increase nonetheless recognize that any increase may result in having 
to make these tough choices.
  In a recent front-page Washington Post article, the owner of a 
discount store in Kansas noted that, while he felt a wage of $7.25 
seemed fair, he also noted that his profit margin was thin and that 
wages are his biggest controllable expense. He said: If wages go up, 
hours will have to come down. And the question will become: Whose, his 
stockman who works 6 hours a day and takes care of a wife who is blind 
and arthritic or should it be another worker who is ill and is on a 
waiting list for an organ transplant and needs more hours rather than 
fewer or yet another employee who is 22 years old and pregnant? These 
are hard realities that are faced by many small employers and those who 
work with them.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post that 
came out recently--I congratulate the writer of that article--be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 10, 2007]

                         Life at $7.25 an Hour

                           (By David Finkel)

       Atchison, KS.--It was payday. Money, at last. Twenty-two-
     year-old Robert Iles wanted to celebrate. ``Tonight, 
     chimichangas!'' he announced.
       He was on his way out of the store where his full-time job 
     pays him $7.25 an hour--the rate that is likely to become the 
     nation's new minimum wage. Life at $7.25; This is the life of 
     Robert Iles and with $70 in a wallet that had been empty that 
     morning, he headed to a grocery store where for $4.98 he 
     bought not only 10 chimichangas but two burritos as well.
       From there he stopped at a convenience store, where for 
     $16.70 he filled the gas tank of the car he purchased when he 
     got his raise to $7.25; then he went to another grocery 
     stores where he got a $21.78 money order to pay down some 
     bills, including $8,000 in medical bills from the day he 
     accidentally sliced open several fingers with a knife while 
     trying to cut a tomato; and then he headed toward the family 
     trailer 19 miles away, where his parents were waiting for 
     dinner.
       Today in Washington, the House is scheduled to vote on 
     whether to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to 
     $7.25. Passage is expected, with Senate approval soon to 
     follow, and if President Bush signs the resulting bill into 
     law, as he indicated he

[[Page S901]]

     would, the U.S. minimum wage would rise for the first time 
     since 1997, ending a debate about whether such a raise would 
     be good or bad for the economy.
       But even if the matter is settled in Congress, it isn't 
     settled at all in Atchison, and Robert Iles's drive home is 
     proof. Every stop he made on his ride home revealed a 
     different facet of how complicated the minimum wage can be in 
     the parts of America where, instead of a debatable issue, it 
     is a way of life.
       At the store where Iles works, for instance, the owner 
     thinks the minimum wage should be increased as a moral issue 
     but worries about which employees' hours he will have to cut 
     to compensate.
       At the store where he bought the chimichangas, the cashier 
     who makes $6.25 worries that a raise will force her out of 
     her subsidized apartment and onto the street.
       At the convenience store where he bought gas, the owner 
     worries that he will have to either raise prices, angering 
     his customers, or make less money, ``and why would I want to 
     make less money?''
       At the store where he got the money order, the worries are 
     about Wal-Mart, which not only supports an increase but also 
     built a Supercenter on the edge of town that has been sucking 
     up customers since it opened three years ago.
       As for Iles--who keeps $70 out of every paycheck to cover 
     two weeks' worth of food and gas and in a matter of minutes 
     was already down to $26.54--his worry was as basic as how 
     fast to drive home.
       Drive too fast and he'd be wasting gas. But his family was 
     waiting. And his chimichangas, best cooked frozen, were 
     starting to thaw.


                        The Meaning of a Dollar

       The debate about the minimum wage usually comes down to 
     jobs. If Congress approves the increase it will result in 
     raises for an estimated 13 million Americans, or about 9 
     percent of the total workforce. That's a percentage that most 
     economists agree would cause a modest increase in national 
     unemployment. In Kansas, however, ``it would have a fairly 
     significant impact,'' said Beth Martino, a spokeswoman for 
     the state Department of Labor. According to one independent 
     analysis, 16 percent of the workforce, or 237,000 workers, 
     would be affected--and that doesn't include the 20,000 whose 
     wages aren't governed by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act 
     and earn the state minimum wage of $2.65. That rate, the 
     lowest in the nation and unchanged since 1988, hints at the 
     prevailing wisdom in Kansas about the minimum wage, which is 
     that the only way low-wage earners will make more is through 
     congressional action.
       This holds true from Topeka, where the powerful Kansas 
     Chamber of Commerce has long opposed any raise, to rural 
     Mulvane, home of Republican state legislator Ted Powers, who 
     says his futile effort three year's ago to raise the state 
     minimum wage resulted in his being branded a ``dirty dog,'' 
     to Atchison, a working-class city of 11,000 where the stores 
     that depend on low-wage workers include one called ``Wow Only 
     $1.00!'' This is the store where Robert Iles has worked for 
     five years.
       ``Robert, would you help me a second?'' Jack Bower, the 
     owner, called to Iles soon after opening, as the line at the 
     cash register grew. A onetime Wal-Mart vice president, Bower 
     moved back to Atchison several years ago to teach and ended 
     up buying the old J.C. Penney store, and now runs a business 
     where the meaning of a dollar is displayed on shelf after 
     shelf. The jar of Peter Piper's Hot Dog Relish? That's what a 
     dollar is worth. The Wolfgang Puck Odor Eliminator that a 
     customer was looking at as she said to a friend, ``I just 
     don't know how I'm ever going to make it. My ex-husband's not 
     paying his child support''? That's a dollar, too, as is the 
     home pregnancy test, the most shoplifted item in the store.
       ``This is not a wealthy community,'' Bower explained. ``The 
     thing is, a lot of people depend on this store.''
       Robert Iles has his own version of a dollar's meaning, 
     learned last February when Bower took him aside and said he 
     would be getting a pay raise to $7.25. ``Okay,'' Iles 
     remembers replying, wanting to seem businesslike. ``But 
     inside I was doing the cha-cha-cha,'' he said. ``It was like 
     going from lower class to lower middle class.''
       Soon after, he bought his car, a used 2005 Dodge Neon, and 
     just about every workday since then he has spent his lunch 
     break in the driver's seat, eating a bologna sandwich with 
     the engine off to save gas, even in winter. An hour later, he 
     was back behind the cash register, telling customers ``Thank 
     you and have a nice day'' again and again.
       And meanwhile, Jack Bower wondered whose hours he will cut 
     if he has to give his employees a raise.
       It's not that he's against raising the minimum wage--``I 
     don't think $5.15 is adequate,'' he said, adding that $7.25 
     seems fair--but his profit margin is thin, and wages are his 
     biggest controllable expense. So if wages go up, he said, 
     hours will have to come down, and the question will become: 
     Whose?
       Will it be Neil Simpson, 66, who works six hours a day as a 
     stockman, and then five more hours somewhere else cleaning 
     floors, and takes care of a wife who is blind and arthritic?
       Will it be Susan Irons 57, who was infected with hepatitis 
     C from a blood transfusion, is on a waiting list for a liver 
     transplant and needs more hours rather than fewer?
       Will it be Christina Lux, who is 22 years old and 13 weeks 
     pregnant?
       Will it be Iles?
       ``Attention, all shoppers,'' he said into the microphone. 
     ``We will be closing in 10 minutes. Please begin making your 
     final selections.'' Ten minutes later, he was clocked out and 
     back in his Neon. ``My brand new car,'' he called it proudly, 
     and he explained how he was able to afford it on $7.25 an 
     hour: a no-money-down loan for which he will pay $313.13 a 
     month until 2012.


                      Small Business ``at Bottom''

       Seven dollars and twenty-five cents an hour equals $15,080 
     per year, and out of that comes $313 for the car loan and 
     $100 for car insurance, Iles said, going over his monthly 
     bills. An additional $90 for the 1995 car with 135,000 miles 
     on it that he is buying from a friend for his mother, $150 
     for the family phone bills, $35 on his credit card, $100 for 
     gas $100 toward the mortgage on the trailer. ``That's about 
     it. Oh yeah, $20 in doctors' bills,'' he said, and totaled it 
     up on fingers scarred by surgical stitches. Nine hundred and 
     eight dollars. ``I bring home 900 a month,'' he said. ``So I 
     very rarely have any money for myself.''
       He parked in front of a store called Always Low Prices, 
     which has the cheapest chimichangas in town.
       Once it was a full-service grocery store with 28 employees. 
     Then came word that Wal-Mart was looking for land for a 
     Supercenter, and now it has become a bare-bones operation 
     where the starting pay for its few employees is $5.50, and 
     the manager wonders how the store will survive if wages 
     increase.
       ``We're at the bottom. If the minimum wage went up, I don't 
     know how we would make the cuts to cover it,'' Michelle Henry 
     said. The lone salaried employee, she works 80 hours a week 
     to make up for the lack of workers. ``I have mixed 
     feelings,'' she continued. ``I know that people can't afford 
     to live on $5.15 an hour. But on the business side, small 
     businesses can't afford to pay it.''
       At the register, meanwhile, Shannon Wilk, 33, who makes 
     $6.25 an hour, said that of course she would like to earn 
     more money. It would help her. It would help her 18-month-old 
     daughter. ``It would be good,'' she said, ``but also, for me, 
     I live in income-based housing, and if I get a raise, my rent 
     would go up, and I would lose my assistance.'' Even the 
     tiniest raise would affect her, she said, and with nowhere to 
     go, the last thing she can afford is a raise to $7.25.
       In such an equation, the fact that she was working in 
     Kansas was to her benefit. Atchison sits on the Kansas-
     Missouri border, and if Wilk worked a few hundred yards to 
     the east, she would already be in jeopardy: In November 
     Missouri voters supported a ballot initiative increasing the 
     state's minimum wage to $6.50, with an annual adjustment for 
     inflation. Five other states had similar votes, with similar 
     results, bringing to 29 the number that now require an hourly 
     wage above the federal minimum, In the District the minimum 
     is $7, in Maryland it's $6.15, and in Virginia it's $5.15.
       Such is the arbitrariness of state-by-state minimum wage 
     laws that Wilk feels lucky to be in Kansas making $6.25 an 
     hour while inside at the first grocery store across the 
     Missouri state line, the cashier was ecstatic that she was in 
     a place where her pay was going from $6.20 to $6.50, 
     explaining, ``That's 30 cents more I ain't got.''
       Iles handed over a $10 bill for his 10 chimichangas and two 
     burritos. He stuffed the change deep in his pocket, and 
     headed next to a convenience store owned by a man named Bill 
     Murphy, who said that if he had the chance to talk to new 
     House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he would ask one question. 
     ``Where does she think the money will come from? And that is 
     the question,'' he said. ``My wages are going to go up 10 
     percent.''
       Unlike Jack Bower who would compensate by cutting hours. 
     Murphy said that in his two convenience stores there are no 
     hours to cut. ``I'm going to have to raise my prices,'' he 
     said--not only because his workers who make less than the new 
     minimum wage would get raises but also because those who earn 
     more would insist on raises as well. Employees at $7.25 will 
     want $8.25. Those at $8.25 will want $9.25.
       Economists classify such workers as the ones who would be 
     indirectly affected by a minimum-wage increase. Of the 
     estimated 13 million workers expected to get raises, 7.4 
     million are in that category. ``You've created this 
     entitlement,'' Murphy said he would tell Pelosi.
       And yet he will pay it, he said, and compensate with price 
     increases, which he worries will be inflationary, even though 
     most economists say that won't happen. He will raise prices 
     he continued, because the only other option would be to earn 
     less money, which he doesn't want to do because he owes $1.5 
     million on his businesses and wouldn't want to default.
       ``Now that might be a stretch in some people's minds, from 
     giving a guy a raise to not being able to pay the bank, but 
     that's the path I'm talking about,'' he said. Against such a 
     dire backdrop, Iles put $17 worth of gas in his car.
       ``That'll be $16.70,'' the clerk said to him, and instead 
     of correcting this. Iles gladly took the change.
       Thirty cents, suddenly got.


                          The Wal-Mart Factor

       Iles drove past the Atchison Inn, where starting pay i$ 
     $5.15, past Movie Gallery, where it's also $5.15, and stopped 
     in front of

[[Page S902]]

     Country Mart, the fanciest grocery store in town, where high 
     school students start at $5.15 and, according to owner Dennis 
     Garrett, ``some of them aren't worth that.''
       A few days earlier, Garrett had gotten a letter from a 
     lobbying consortium called the Coalition for Job 
     Opportunities, urging him to write Congress to protest the 
     minimum-wage increase. It came in the form of a letter 
     already written, to which he merely had to add his 
     congressman's name and send it off to Washington. ``We are 
     very concerned,'' the letter began. and it was signed by 25 
     organizations.
       The most conspicuous signature, though, was the one that 
     wasn't there, that of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private 
     employer, with 1.3 million workers. Wal-Mart won't say how 
     many of those workers earn less than what the new minimum 
     wage would be, but if the Atchison store is an example, 
     starting pay is $6 an hour.
       Nonetheless, in October 2005, Wal-Mart chief executive H. 
     Lee Scott Jr. said in a speech that the ``U.S. minimum wage 
     of $5.15 an hour has not been raised in nearly a decade, and 
     we believe it is out of date with the times,'' He went on to 
     say, ``Our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic 
     necessities between paychecks.''
       When it comes to Wal-Mart, however, just about any 
     announcement that affects public policy is greeted with 
     suspicion, and that has been the case with the minimum wage. 
     Some have said that Wal-Mart, in need of good publicity, is 
     supporting an increase for public relations reasons; others 
     have declared it an attempt to drive small, independently 
     owned stores out of business.
       These suspicions exist in Atchison as well. As in many 
     small communities, Wal-Mart defines local retail, and just as 
     Always Low Prices had to retool itself, Country Mart was 
     significantly affected by Wal-Mart's new food-stocked 
     Supercenter several miles away.
       What is Wal-Mart up to? What are its true motives? Like 
     many others, Dennis Garrett wonders. He imagines public 
     relations is part of it, but he didn't want to speculate on 
     whether this was an attempt to put him out of business, 
     except to say that raising some wages wouldn't do that. He'd 
     reduce some hours, he said. He'd manage.
       Yes, Atchison businesses would be hurt initially, but in 
     the long run, if unemployment increases, those hurt the most 
     would be the very ones Wal-Mart insists would be helped--the 
     customers, especially the younger ones, ``the people who 
     don't advance their education and need a job between the ages 
     of 16 and 21, 22, 23.''
       In other words, many of the workers in Atchison, one of 
     whom was now at Garrett's service counter buying a money 
     order so he could pay bills. Even though Iles has a checking 
     account, this is the method he prefers because if he were to 
     pay by check, and the check were to bounce because of 
     insufficient funds, the penalty would be devastating. A $25 
     fee would require more than three hours of work.
       And where would those hours come from?


                         ``It's Tough for Me''

       So go the calculations of a $7.25 worker, now headed home.
       ``It's an old trailer,'' he explained earlier in the day.
       The heat doesn't work, he said, and the water heater works 
     sporadically.
       One of the bedroom ceilings is caving in. He sleeps in the 
     other bedroom, and his parents sleep in the living room 
     because his father, who has diabetes and had to have several 
     inches of one of his feet amputated, can't really get around.
       Also, his father has leukemia. And is legally blind. And 
     his mother, who once made $6.50 an hour as an aide at a 
     nursing home, quit to take care of her husband.
       ``We're pretty much living off my money,'' Iles said, and 
     in he went to cook them dinner, bring payday to an end and, 
     the next morning, start the cycle again.
       Life at $7.25. Should that be the minimum wage?
       ``Yes,'' Iles said.
       Even if it hurts job opportunities for people like him, as 
     Dennis Garrett had suggested?
       ``Yes.''
       Or causes price increases, as Bill Murphy had suggested?
       ``Yes.''
       Or damages businesses such as Always Low Prices?
       ``I mean, it's tough for me, and I'm already making $7.25 
     an hour.''
       Or causes Jack Bower to reduce hours for one of his 
     employees? Perhaps for Iles himself?
       ``It's just so hard for people. I mean it's hard,'' Iles 
     said, and then he went to work.
       ``I think it'll be bad today,'' one of the workers 
     suggested as the line at the Wow Only $1.00! cash register 
     began to form.
       ``Well, it depends on your perspective,'' Iles said.

  Mr. ENZI. The author of the article is really a master at showing how 
all of these things are intertwined. It is very revealing and makes a 
good case for the increase in the minimum wage. But it does show some 
of the decisions that will have to be made and how that will affect 
other people, some of whom will be in a similar situation.
  In a similar vein, when confronted by higher labor costs, employers 
will naturally gravitate toward filling positions with their most 
highly skilled, experienced, and productive workers available. Once 
again, this phenomenon of replacing low-skilled with high-skilled 
workers in the face of rising labor costs winds up harming the very 
workers an increase in the minimum wage seeks to help. The minimum wage 
positions are very often the entryway into the world of work for those 
who lack skills and experience. I can't say that enough. I am hoping 
the Workforce Investment Act will kind of come out of this whole 
process, too, and provide some additional training so people with less 
skills can have more skills and get some of the choice jobs that this 
country has to offer. But mandated increases in the minimum wage run 
the risk of closing that entryway to many.
  Another option, of course, for employers that has to be considered is 
automation as an alternative to a paid employee. Does this sound 
farfetched? Consider how the automated teller machines, the ATMs, have 
replaced tellers, how the self-checkout lane at many establishments has 
replaced the clerk, and the drive-through has replaced the waiter, and 
in toll booths the EZ Pass has replaced the toll collector--not all of 
them, but a lot of them who use the EZ Pass eliminate toll collectors. 
We have seen some charts on how productivity goes up when the minimum 
wage goes up. Sometimes productivity goes up when machines are 
instituted in place of people. They can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week, 365 days a year. We don't pay them any health benefits. We may 
have a little bit of maintenance done on them. They don't get any 
vacation.
  Employees are still necessary. I keep telling people that you can't 
outsource the fact when your toilet is plugged and you need some help 
or when your electric switch doesn't work, there are a lot of hands-on 
things that absolutely require people. But they are figuring out ways 
to automate a lot of these things. In Gillette, WY, where I am from, we 
have this huge worker shortage, and as I have said a number of times, I 
keep encouraging people to go west and find the new frontier and get 
some good jobs. But when they are pinched, they come up with some other 
ways of doing things. The drive-up for our McDonald's is actually 
handled out of California. When you drive up to the little window and 
you order your Big Mac, you are actually talking to someone in 
California who uses the Internet to send the order back to the people 
who are putting it all together to give to you when you get in your 
car. They have been able to increase the number of drive-throughs 
substantially using lower paid--this kind of amazes me--out of 
California. So automation is one of the answers.
  Beyond these cost-cutting measures of eliminating benefits, reducing 
hours, downsizing, laying off employees, reducing low-skill and entry-
level employment, and automating, employers may also have to face up to 
the prospect of increasing the price of their goods and services. Price 
increases caused by mandated cost increases bring their own catalog of 
ills. Such increases drive inflation and cause all consumers to 
ultimately pay the price of these mandates. The irony is that as the 
cost of these labor increases is passed to the consumers, it affects 
everyone, including the minimum wage worker, whose recently increased 
wages are suddenly devalued by the increased price for goods and 
services that impact them as well. So on this ladder of success, we 
have kind of removed the lower rung of it. So it is a little bigger 
step to get up there, and some of them aren't going to be able to make 
the step because of some of the ways that it has to be adjusted.
  In the same Washington Post article I mentioned earlier, another 
small employer who owns two convenience stores noted that he simply 
does not have the option of cutting hours to meet his increased payroll 
burden. Instead, he noted: I am going to have to raise my prices. He 
indicated if he had the chance to talk with Speaker Pelosi about the 
minimum wage, he would ask one question, and that is: Where does she 
think the money will come from? Of course, it can be argued that his 
customers, if he raises the price for the candy bar or the cup of 
coffee, will go somewhere where it is cheaper, and that is a good 
possibility. That means that in order to maintain

[[Page S903]]

the business, if he is going to raise those prices, he has to have 
employees who give better service, quicker service, and that goes back 
to the on-the-job training I was mentioning that a lot of these small 
businesses do. They have to have the good service in order to keep 
their loyal customers. Sometimes that doesn't just hinge on the price 
of the candy bar or a cup of coffee.
  I believe almost all of us recognize these economic realities and 
that none of us want them to come about. It is for those precise 
reasons that the substitute amendment contains provisions designed to 
enable our smallest employers to meet the obligations imposed by a 
minimum wage increase without resorting to the difficult personnel 
choices, the consumer price increases or all of the other things I 
mentioned.
  Yesterday, I spoke briefly about the fact that in legislating, it is 
often important to find a third way. In this instance, the third way is 
one that will provide an increase in the minimum wage but also provide 
relief to the most affected small businesses so that they don't 
experience employee dislocation, a reduction in employment 
opportunities for low-skilled and entry-level workers or an increase in 
consumer prices that takes away the real value of any wage increase.
  The third way is represented by the real value of any wage increase. 
The third way is represented by the substitute amendment that was the 
product of extensive bipartisan support, Democrats and Republicans 
working together, acknowledging the fact that mandated cost increases 
can have negative economic effects. So together we developed a means of 
addressing those concerns in the form of a bipartisan substitute 
amendment. I can't emphasize enough how pleased I am with the 
cooperation I saw as people worked out different alternatives. There 
were certainly a wide variety of them that were done and I think with 
some concentration particularly on how they would affect small 
business. I would reiterate the bipartisan support of that small 
business tax incentive package. There are key Democratic leaders who 
have acknowledged the need for the package to offset any wage increase 
in order to not disenfranchise the employers and their workers.

  So I hope we won't make this partisan now. As I mentioned yesterday, 
the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and I have gone head to 
head on raising the minimum wage three times in the past several years. 
Each time, the votes were set up for each side to fail. This time 
around, we worked to come up with a third way in order to get the job 
done. I hope that all efforts to try and unravel this third way that 
will most likely result in a minimum wage increase isn't abandoned for 
the sake of making partisan messages. I urge my colleagues to continue 
to support the small business incentive package as a much-needed offset 
to the increased Federal wage.
  I think this is a tremendous opportunity for us to do the right thing 
in all aspects, and I hope there will be good bipartisan support. I 
understand the desire to have a clean minimum wage, but that is what we 
have been going through for a couple of years now, and we are finally 
talking bipartisan. I think that was something that came out of the 
elections. I am pleased to see it is operating, and we will see how 
long it continues. I hope it continues through the entire session.


                     Amendment No. 108, as Modified

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions 
amendment No. 108 be modified with the changes at the desk, and I urge 
its adoption, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 108), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. STUDY OF UNIVERSAL USE OF ADVANCE PAYMENT OF EARNED 
                   INCOME CREDIT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to 
     Congress on a study of the benefits, costs, risks, and 
     barriers to workers and to businesses (with a special 
     emphasis on small businesses) if the advance earned income 
     tax credit program (under section 3507 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986) included all recipients of the earned 
     income tax credit (under section 32 of such Code) and what 
     steps would be necessary to implement such inclusion.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 108), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 107 Withdrawn

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions 
amendment No. 107 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in about 6 or 7 minutes, we will be 
having a vote, and then I would expect the President's State of the 
Union Address will place demands on the Members, so that will mean we 
will probably move over until tomorrow. As I mentioned earlier, I hope 
our colleagues will vote in support of the Sessions amendment for the 
reasons I have outlined.
  I think an important message ought to go out to families and to 
workers all over this country and many others who have worked long and 
hard to try and urge the Senate of the United States to move on the 
minimum wage issue and raise the minimum wage, as it has been stuck for 
the last 10 years at $5.15. There are people who have knocked on doors, 
there are people who have stuffed envelopes and there are people who 
have phoned into radio stations and people who have written letters to 
the editors and people who have met with Members of Congress all over 
this country. People have marched, attended parades, and demonstrated. 
They have spoken out for fairness and justice for workers. Tomorrow we 
will have a real opportunity to respond to that.
  I am very hopeful, as a result of the votes tomorrow, we will be well 
on the way toward this body supporting action that has taken place in 
the House of Representatives and a vote for an increase in the minimum 
wage. There will be those who will go to bed tonight who have been 
working long and hard for $5.15 an hour. They may work one job, and 
many of them, 300,000 Americans, work two full-time jobs. They probably 
keep saying a prayer, and they are keeping their fingers crossed that 
in the Senate, tomorrow will provide at least some additional breath of 
hope to them and to their families, to their loved ones, that can make 
a difference in terms of their lives and what a difference this can 
make.
  As we have mentioned, it may be more than a year's worth of groceries 
to some families or it may be the tuition for a community college. It 
could be 20 months of child care for some workers. It could be heating 
and electric bills for 19 months, all measured in a few months, for 
things that so many of us, certainly in this body, take for granted. 
But out there in so many communities across the country, people fight 
and struggle to try and achieve those goals.
  So this is a very important vote. We have important votes and some 
not so important votes in this body, but tomorrow will be one of great 
importance and consequence. I think it will be a defining issue about 
what kind of society we are; what is the measure of our decency and the 
measure of our humanity in this body. So I am very hopeful as to the 
outcome, and we urge our colleagues to give us their support. We will 
have an opportunity to make comments tomorrow morning briefly before we 
vote on these measures. We thank all of our Members for all of their 
cooperation and their help to Senator Enzi and myself over the last 
several days. So with that I would indicate to our colleagues that in 
approximately 2 minutes or so we will begin the vote on the Sessions 
amendment, an amendment which both I and Senator Enzi support.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S904]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield back, with the consent of both sides, the 2 minutes 
that was to be available on both sides. I yield back that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 106, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Biden
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 106), as modified, was agreed to
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________