[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 15 (Thursday, January 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1136-S1182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 100, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for Gregg) amendment No. 101 (to amendment No. 
     100), to provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending 
     by establishing enhanced rescission authority under fast-
     track procedures.
       Kyl amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 100), to extend 
     through December 31, 2008, the depreciation treatment of 
     leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements.
       Bunning amendment No. 119 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 income 
     tax increase on Social Security benefits.
       Enzi (for Ensign/Inhofe) amendment No. 152 (to amendment 
     No. 100), to reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, 
     and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system.
       Enzi (for Ensign) amendment No. 153 (to amendment No. 100), 
     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.
       Enzi (for Ensign) amendment No. 154 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to improve access to affordable health care.
       Smith amendment No. 113 (to amendment No. 100), to make 
     permanent certain education-related tax incentives.
       Vitter/Voinovich amendment No. 110 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to amend title 44 of the United States Code, to provide for 
     the suspension of fines under certain circumstances for 
     first-time paperwork violations by small business concerns.
       DeMint amendment No. 155 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative 
     governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in 
     interstate commerce, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 regarding the disposition of unused health benefits 
     in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements and the 
     use of health savings accounts for the payment of health 
     insurance premiums for high deductible health plans purchased 
     in the individual market.
       DeMint amendment No. 156 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the disposition 
     of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible 
     spending arrangements.
       DeMint amendment No. 157 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     increase the Federal minimum wage by an amount that is based 
     on applicable State minimum wages.
       DeMint amendment No. 158 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 100), to increase the Federal 
     minimum wage by an amount that is based on applicable State 
     minimum wages.
       DeMint amendment No. 159 (to amendment No. 100), to protect 
     individuals from having their money involuntarily collected 
     and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
       DeMint amendment No. 160 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain small 
     businesses to defer payment of tax.
       DeMint amendment No. 161 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     prohibit the use of flexible schedules by Federal employees 
     unless such flexible schedule benefits are made available to 
     private sector employees not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.
       DeMint amendment No. 162 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 regarding the minimum 
     wage.
       Kennedy (for Kerry) amendment No. 128 (to amendment No. 
     100), to direct the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration to establish a pilot program to provide 
     regulatory compliance assistance to small business concerns.


                           Amendment No. 158

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be a 1-hour time limit for debate prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 158, with the time equally divided between the Senator 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the Senator from South Carolina, 
Mr. DeMint.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 
such time as he might consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina 
controls the time.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.
  Well, here we are again. A couple of weeks ago, we were here in the 
Senate Chamber talking about the need to have full disclosure of 
earmarks--pet projects that are added into bills, only to find that the 
underlying bill only disclosed about 5 percent of all the earmarks. 
After a lot of procedural maneuvering and give-and-take, fortunately, 
Republicans and Democrats came together and realized that if we are 
going to do this--tell the American people we are going to disclose 
earmarks--then we should do it, and we should do it for all earmarks, 
and we should be open and honest about what we do. Fortunately, we 
fixed that problem. But here we are again today.
  Now we are talking about raising the minimum wage for American 
workers. We have had passionate pleas, which are warranted. There are 
too many people in this country who don't make a livable wage. We, as 
Senators, Congressmen, and as Americans, should do everything we can to 
help people earn a livable wage and better.
  There have been a lot of passionate speeches on the floor about, What 
do we do with a single mom with two kids working at the minimum wage? 
How can they possibly get by? It is true. It is very true. But as we 
look at this minimum wage bill and as we look out on America and 
promise to give every minimum wage worker a raise, we find that, if you 
really look at the bill, less than half of the workers who are working 
at the minimum wage will receive a $2.10 increase. Many will receive 
nothing at all. So the amendment I have introduced is one that would 
give 100 percent of Americans working at the minimum wage a raise 
because that is, in effect, what we are promising as we debate on the 
floor. This amendment is called minimum fairness for workers. That is 
what it is all about. The idea is that every American working at 
minimum wage will receive a $2.10 increase as we have promised.
  It is important to realize that America is very diverse and 
different. States have very different costs of living. As we look 
across the country, there are many States that have a much higher than 
average cost of living, and some have a much lower cost of living. 
Actually, more than half of the States in this country--29--have passed 
a minimum wage that is higher than the $5.15 national Federal minimum 
wage.
  We see, if you look at Massachusetts, for instance--the State of 
Senator Kennedy, who has been a great defender of the minimum wage and 
the average worker, which I commend him on--it is one of the higher 
cost of living States in this country. They have raised their minimum 
wage to $7.50. I think we would all agree that a single mom with two 
children living in Boston, MA, making $7.50 an hour is not making a 
livable wage. The fact is, that same family living in South Carolina 
and making $5.15 an hour is doing better than those who are making 
$7.50 in Massachusetts because of the cost of living. Many of the 
Southern States have a lower average cost of living--cost of an 
apartment, cost of food, and cost of transportation and taxes; it is 
much lower. So many States across the country have looked at their cost 
of living and have raised their minimum wage higher than the national 
average because of that cost of living.
  As we look at raising the national minimum wage again--and we know it 
has been years since we have done that--we need to realize that the 
cost of living across this country is different. I commend States such 
as Massachusetts that have recognized that and passed a minimum wage 
that is higher than the national average. But

[[Page S1137]]

it is not fair and it is not honest for us to have a national minimum 
wage debate and leave more than half of the minimum wage workers out of 
this whole promise of a wage increase. It is important for us to look 
across the country and see what this minimum wage bill will do if we 
don't adopt the amendment I am talking about. All of the States here on 
the chart in blue are States where the minimum wage workers will 
receive less than a one-dime--10 cents--increase if we pass this bill. 
Most of them will receive nothing at all--after all of the promises. 
These are some of the highest cost of living States in the country.
  My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts talked about the 
importance of raising the minimum wage. I know he would agree that 
someone making $7.50 an hour in Boston, MA, is not making a livable 
wage. If we are going to promise to help these people, the people 
working in Massachusetts deserve a raise as much as the people working 
in South Carolina. But under this bill, the minimum wage worker in 
Massachusetts will receive no increase; Vermont will receive no 
increase; Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington State, Oregon, and 
California will receive no increase at all. Illinois will receive a 
dime. Yet with all this big national debate and hoopla, which has 
become symbolic of trying to help low-income Americans make more money, 
we know as a body that only a fraction of 1 percent of Americans 
working at the minimum wage will get it.
  Yet we are trying to tell them this bill is going to raise their 
standard of living, and we know that less than half of the minimum wage 
workers in this country are going to receive a $2.10 increase. This 
amendment is about 100 percent, just as we did 100 percent of earmarks. 
We got together, we realized the underlying bill didn't work, and we 
did the right thing.
  I think there are much better ways to help people earn a livable wage 
than mandating that they get an increase. But if we are going to do it, 
let's do it right and let's be fair to all Americans. If we promise an 
increase for minimum wage workers, let's give every American working at 
the minimum wage a $2.10 increase so that a person working in 
Massachusetts with a higher cost of living would get a raise, just as 
in Louisiana or Alabama or South Carolina. Every minimum wage worker 
across this land would have a $2.10 increase.
  I don't think that is too much to ask. If the Senate is going to 
spend 2 weeks talking about it, if we are going to have these 
impassioned pleas to help minimum wage workers, how can we leave half 
of minimum wage workers out of this whole process and pretend to be 
helping everyone? It doesn't make sense. This is about 100 percent. It 
is about fairness. It is about looking at these cameras in this Chamber 
and telling people the truth.
  If we are going to pass a minimum wage, if we think we are doing the 
right thing by mandating that we raise the minimum wage above where it 
is across this land, then let's have it apply to 50 States, 100 percent 
of our workers. That is the only fair and honest way.
  Again, I commend the States that have had the good judgment and the 
wisdom to recognize that their cost of living is higher, but if we 
don't include them here, then we have done an injustice to their 
workers.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to look at this amendment. This is 
not a trick. It is clear and simple. Every minimum wage worker in 
America will get a $2.10 increase if we adopt this amendment and then 
pass this final bill.
  I will make a commitment to the Senator from Massachusetts and to 
others here that while I have not supported this idea of mandating a 
minimum wage as the best way to improve and increase salaries, if we 
are fair, if we adopt this amendment, I will vote for the final bill 
for raising the minimum wage because it will be fair to all Americans, 
and I will encourage my colleagues who have not supported it in the 
past to be together as a Senate.
  Let's not come out and make an impassioned plea to raise the minimum 
wage in one State but not another. That doesn't make sense, and it is 
not fair and it is not open. It is about 100 percent, and I encourage 
100 percent of my colleagues to look at this amendment, do the right 
thing, and include every minimum wage worker.
  I yield back my time to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.
  This is the fourth day that the Senate is addressing an issue of 
enormous importance to those on the lower end of the economic ladder--
an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. It is not a 
complicated issue. Everybody in this body knows what the issues are. 
Usually, we have great debates about complicated issues in the United 
States of America. Soon we will be debating varied policies with regard 
to Iraq, as we should. But this issue is a simple issue. It is an issue 
of simple justice. It is as old as many of us in this body. Minimum 
wage was advanced more than 70 years ago. We have increased it now nine 
times over recent years, and yet Republicans want to continue to delay, 
delay, delay, delay, delay, delay, delay; oppose, oppose, oppose.
  There was opposition yesterday in insisting that we get cloture in 
the Senate on an increase in the minimum wage, requiring that we get 60 
votes before we can vote up or down on a simple, easy issue and 
question of fundamental fairness to workers in this country.
  We are glad to have debates, but the message ought to go out to the 
American people exactly what is going on here on day 5 in the Senate on 
the issue of minimum wage. And we continue to have, as the minority 
leader said, scores--40, 50, more amendments, 90 amendments--on the 
issue of the increase in the minimum wage--90 amendments. Make no 
mistake about it, America, who is holding up the increase in the 
minimum wage.
  Eight times the Senate has increased its own salary, increased the 
salary of the good Senator from South Carolina $32,000 in the last 10 
years--$32,000. And if we have had 1 hour of debate on that issue--1 
hour of debate on that issue, 1 hour of debate on that issue--I would 
be surprised. This is the fifth day our Republican friends who, as 
Members on the Democratic side, have enjoyed a $32,000 increase in 
their pay have 90 amendments to try and scuttle an increase in the 
minimum wage for low-income workers--trying to scuttle, to sink the 
increase.

  These workers understand it. Workers across this country understand 
it. Working families understand it. Middle-income people understand it. 
All Americans understand it. This is one of those basic and fundamental 
issues people understand because it is an issue of fairness.
  I don't impugn the motives of my friend from South Carolina, but he 
has opposed the minimum wage on every single occasion he has addressed 
it--every single occasion. We have the record here as to how the good 
Senator has voted every time on the issue of an increase in the minimum 
wage: going back to the House of Representatives in 2002, 2005, and 
over here on seven different occasions he has voted against the 
increase in the minimum wage. So the idea that he wants to provide 
$2.10 more to every worker in States that have raised--under the age-
old law of the minimum wage--their minimum wage because of the failure 
of the Senate to do it has a sort of hollow ring to it. It has sort of 
a hollow ring to it since he has opposed an increase in the minimum 
wage on each and every occasion we have considered it. We have to take 
a look at exactly what is being done.
  I assure my friend from South Carolina that the workers in my State 
understand the battle they have had to increase the minimum wage. And I 
daresay, in the various States across the country that have increased 
their minimum wage, they have understood that, too. The legislators 
have gone out and worked, and workers understand what they have done. 
They have understood what they have done. They have understood that the 
minimum wage is a basic standard which is supposed to be the lowest 
living wage. It is supposed to be the lowest living wage. Historically, 
it is supposed to be half of what the average wage is in the country. 
That goes back to the time beginning of the minimum wage and the record 
shows that all the way up to probably the 1980s, and then it has

[[Page S1138]]

dropped precipitously, half of what it was.
  Going back to the 1930s, the minimum wage was designed to be a floor. 
If States want to add something to it, they can, but it ought to be a 
floor for all workers in this country. One of the principal reasons it 
was passed at that time is because the Members of this body, the House 
of Representatives, and the President of the United States saw what was 
happening in different parts of the country where States were lowering 
their wages to try and attract industries and companies in a rush to 
the bottom, with the exploitation of worker after worker, family after 
family, in a rush to the bottom. So the national decision was taken, in 
terms of fairness and as a moral issue, that workers who were going to 
work hard were going to receive a minimum wage.
  One of the age-old values in our country, in society, is that work 
ought to pay. We hear that stated around here with great ease and 
frequency, and that is what we are trying to do with a minimum wage 
increase. We are trying to make work pay, pay people who are doing some 
of the most difficult work in America, and demonstrate a respect for 
that work, give them pay because they are doing hard, difficult work, 
but we respect our fellow Americans and respect their efforts.
  This is not the law of the jungle. The economy of the United States 
of America isn't survival of the fittest. Some would like to have it 
that way. Some who oppose the minimum wage would like to have it that 
way, but it isn't that way, thank God, in the United States of America. 
It is in the jungle, but not with regard to a democracy and a free 
economy.
  Let me state specifically what this proposal does. The good Senator 
yesterday voted to permit any State to effectively opt out of any kind 
of minimum wage. So that would have fundamentally destroyed any kind of 
uniformity across the country.
  His proposal is, in the wake of the Senate and Congress over 10 years 
under Republican leadership refusing to increase the minimum wage, the 
States in their own good judgments have done so, and now he says let's 
add on $2.10 to do that. It does seem to me appealing in a certain 
respect, because I believe the minimum wage is not a livable wage in 
many parts of the country. We have seen these livable wage campaigns 
that are taking place in Baltimore, Los Angeles--many cities around the 
country--my own city of Boston, and they have raised it in a particular 
region, and it has had great success.
  But that isn't the issue. This particular amendment of the Senator 
would basically do what was attempted yesterday, but do it in a 
different way. Yesterday was to effectively end the minimum wage by 
letting any State opt out. Today the swing of the pendulum has gone the 
other way. The amendment says we are going to add additional funds on 
to any State. Every State over these past years has noted the failure 
of the Senate as a result of Republican leadership because we have had 
a majority read back the records of the votes in the Senate. We had a 
majority in the Senate with good Republican support to raise the 
minimum wage, but we couldn't get to the 60 votes, and our Republican 
leadership wouldn't let us. So the States moved ahead. Now that the 
States have moved ahead, the Senator wants to say: Oh, you have moved 
ahead because you made a judgment about the respect for your own 
workers, and we are going to add on to it to try to disrupt the minimum 
wage.
  I hope this amendment will not be accepted, and I hope we will be 
able to move along and make further progress on this issue.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, could I ask what the time situation is?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina has 
18 minutes 40 seconds. The Senator from Massachusetts has 17 minutes 35 
seconds.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask to have the Senator from South 
Carolina yield me 8 minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I need to address a few of the things that were said. ``We 
are on the fifth day of this debate.'' Yes, we are. ``It's a simple 
bill.'' No, it is not a simple bill. It is simple in the one proposal 
that is out there, but it has a lot of interlocking implications. We 
had some debate yesterday, separate from an amendment on tip credits. 
We talked about work opportunity tax credits. We talked about earned-
income tax credits. All of those tie in with the minimum wage, so it 
has a lot of implications.
  It has a lot of implications for small businesses, too. I showed some 
quotes from a lady who would lose hours, another from someone who would 
lose their job. They were all in situations where they can't afford to 
do that. There have been charts showing that on the aggregate it helps 
the whole economy to raise the minimum wage. But on an individual basis 
it affects people individually. Small business employees understand. 
They are really connected to their business. They know how much the 
employer is making. They know what the markup is on things. And they 
know whether their job is in danger or not, so there is that concern.
  But I want to clear up something. There has not been an argument 
against raising the minimum wage. The argument has been for doing 
something to help counter the impact on small business. We have been 
acting in a bipartisan way on some things; we can act in a bipartisan 
way on this. I contend that as soon as there is some assurance to the 
minority that there will be some tax offsets for the small businesses, 
this process will speed up dramatically. But until there is that 
assurance we will be using our opportunities, the process, to make sure 
we can take care of small business at the same time and not put them 
out of business.
  There has been some cooperation, at least through the press. I would 
mention that Senator Reid said:

       If it takes adding small-business tax cuts to have a 
     minimum wage tax increase, we're going to do that. Maybe we 
     can get 60 votes to invoke cloture on a straight minimum 
     wage. I'm not sure we want to do that. . . . A one-party town 
     doesn't work. We have a majority of 51-49. We're going to 
     accomplish the possible; that's what we're going to do.

  That was on January 5 at a press conference. I have some other quotes 
from him, too, but Senator Baucus said:

       Small business is the engine that drives our economy and 
     creates jobs on Main Street. That's why I'm proud we are 
     getting them some tax relief from Uncle Sam. . . . It's high 
     time our workers get a raise. At the same time we are going 
     to give a boost to small business.

  That was a January 17 press release.
  Senator Kerry:

       I support the majority of the provisions of the Small 
     Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007. I would have 
     preferred that this package moved separately rather than in 
     tandem with a minimum wage bill. However, the reality is we 
     need a tax package in order to advance minimum wage 
     legislation.

  That is from a January 2007 committee report, Small Business and Work 
Opportunity Act of 2007.
  I have a whole lot of quotes from the other side of the aisle that 
have encouraged me that we can do both things--raise the minimum wage 
and have some offsets for small business.
  I have talked to the Senator from Massachusetts about this before. I 
understand his desire to have just the minimum wage increase and his 
concern that any other discussion takes away from that. I suggested 
that it wouldn't take away from it if it were a whole package to begin 
with; that it would be a minimum wage increase and our concerns about 
having some tax breaks for the small businesses would overcome that. 
But we have not gone that route yet.
  The debate we had yesterday, the cloture vote we had yesterday, would 
have excluded the possibility of doing the tax breaks. I have to tell 
you, to get those tax breaks to offset the impact on small business has 
a long road to go because the House didn't pass any of those. In fact, 
the House has made some very detrimental comments about it. There is a 
process over here that enforces the rights of the minority and can 
provide some protection for the small businesses, the mom-and-pops out 
there trying to make enough living for their own families and provide 
for some workers that we can take care of at the same time. But it is

[[Page S1139]]

going to take some showing that there is some dual concern, both for 
the employee and for the mom-and-pop businesses, before we move along 
much faster.
  That is what the debate is about. It is not about whether to raise 
the minimum wage. The minimum wage will be raised. I hope there are a 
whole lot of other things that will be done in the process, too, 
because we need to move these people to more skilled jobs, and we need 
to get a Workforce Investment Act through, too, and I would have liked 
to see this be part of this same bill, too, so we could increase the 
skills of the employees and get them into better jobs. We don't want to 
just remove the bottom rung of the ladder and have them have to make a 
bigger step to get a job to begin with. We want them to have better 
jobs. Better jobs do not hit the inflationary core quite as much.
  I want to be sure people understand we are not talking about whether 
to do a minimum wage, we are talking about whether to do a minimum wage 
increase and offset some of the impact for small businesses.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from South 
Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, this is a good debate and I think it is 
an important debate. I appreciate the points of Senator Kennedy. Many 
of them I agree with, but it is my hope that those same points will 
apply to the many States, such as Massachusetts and Washington State 
and California and many other States so that those people working at 
the minimum wage in those States will receive a minimum wage, too.
  I appreciate the fact that he has recognized that States such as 
Massachusetts did respond to the higher cost of living that their 
workers face by passing their own minimum wage. I think if we look 
across the country we will see that, again, 29 States have taken that 
action because it does cost more to live there. He points out that in 
the past I have not supported the increase in the minimum wage. It is 
not completely true, but many times I have not supported it because it 
has not been fair. It does not apply to all American workers.
  As the Senator from Wyoming just pointed out, if these bills that 
mandate wage increases do not include some provisions that help small 
businesses stay profitable, then they cannot hire these minimum wage 
workers. Many times they are teenagers. Many times they are trainees. 
We want to encourage every small business in this country to bring in 
as many workers as it can to train them and develop them because all 
the statistics tell us that folks who start at the minimum wage are 
generally only making it a few months before they prove that they can 
do the work and move on. It is a way to get a lot of people into the 
workforce.
  I think it is important to point out, as the Senator said I never 
supported a minimum wage, that I did, in fact, last year. The Family 
Prosperity Act was a package, a compromise package that raised the 
minimum wage just as we are talking about now, although it did not do 
it for every American. It eliminated the death tax, which adversely 
affects so many small businesses in the event of the death of an owner, 
whether it is a farm or small business. Many low-wage workers lose 
their jobs in the process of those businesses or farms closing. We 
packaged those together so we could do both: we could help the worker, 
but we could also make sure these small businesses continue to survive 
so they can hire those workers. There were other tax provisions in the 
Family Prosperity Act, but it was a good bill.
  This bill was not blocked by Republicans. It was proposed by 
Republicans and blocked by Democrats. It was a sad time when we saw in 
order to score political points that we turned our backs on workers in 
order to avoid giving small businesses the provision on the death tax 
that would allow families to continue to operate businesses.
  I would like to summarize my amendment so it is not misrepresented. 
It is not a trick. We are talking on the floor of the Senate about 
giving minimum wage workers a raise of $2.10. States have already 
passed minimum wage laws, and some of them are different. In most cases 
it is because of the higher cost of living.
  If we come in and raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in a 
number of States, South Carolina and Massachusetts will have 
essentially the same minimum wage--maybe a quarter difference. But a 
minimum wage worker living in Boston, MA, faces tremendously higher 
costs than a minimum wage worker who lives and works in Greenville, SC. 
If we are going to be fair, and if we are going to make all these 
speeches on the floor of the Senate that we are going to help minimum 
wage workers, it does not make sense to leave out over half of the 
minimum wage workers in this country and go home and pretend that we 
have done something good.
  I have told the Senator that while I have opposed the strategies of 
wage mandates in the past, that if we are fair, if this bill includes 
100 percent of minimum wage workers, I will not only support it, the 
final bill, I will encourage my colleagues to support it because it is 
the right thing to do. I believe if we were all speaking openly and 
honestly, we could say that even $7.50 an hour in Boston, MA, is not a 
liveable wage. If you took that up to $9.60, hopefully, we are getting 
at the point where people can survive. But $9.60 in Boston, MA, is no 
more money than $7.25 in South Carolina.
  Let's be fair to workers. Let's use what has already been started by 
the States, and that is recognizing cost of living to help every 
American worker.
  Again, this is just about simple fairness, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts has said. If we are going to promise an increase of $2.10 
to minimum wage workers, let's do it for 100 percent of the workers in 
every State of our Union. Let's give them that increase today.
  I encourage my colleagues to not look at the past. If we can support 
fairness together, let's all vote together to give every American 
minimum wage worker a $2.10 increase. That is my amendment. I encourage 
my colleagues to support it.
  I yield and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank the good Senator for his 
concern about the workers in Massachusetts. In Boston we have a living 
wage of $11.95. We made that judgment in Boston, and it is working very 
well.
  I take note, in this American Chamber of Commerce Researchers 
Association publication, that South Carolina ranks 18th in terms of the 
cost of living. There are 17 other States that have a lower cost of 
living. But South Carolina is 18th in this list. It is not at the 
lowest; it is 18th.
  The fact is, it is not greatly out of sync. It is close to the 
average across the country. But let's get back to the effect of the 
Senator's amendment.
  In Arizona, in this last election, there were 756,144 people who 
voted for an increase in the minimum wage to $6.75. That vote would be 
overturned, effectively, by the Senator from South Carolina. In 
Colorado, 725,700 turned out for a $6.85 minimum wage. The citizens of 
Colorado--their votes would be overturned. In Missouri, 1,583,340 
million voted for $6.50. That vote would be overturned. Montana, $6.15, 
283,258 turned out. Nevada, 394,058 turned out, $6.15 an hour. Ohio, 
$6.85, 2,080,648 turned out. Those are 5,823,148 in six different 
States. That is in regard to the initial referendum. All of that would 
be overturned by the Senator from South Carolina.

  So I come back to the basic concept, and that is that we have 
established some minimum standards. There are a lot of objections to 
those minimum health standards, so workers are not going to be--since 
we passed OSHA in 1970, we have cut in half the number of workers who 
have been killed in the workplace. We have cut that in half. About 60 
percent less workers have been killed. There are other kinds of 
illnesses that have come up with changes in our economy, but a decision 
in judgment was made that we are not going to have the exploitation of 
workers. We are going to have safe workplaces. We don't permit the 
exploitation of children in our factories. We think they ought to be in 
schools. Some economists think: Oh, let's have children in there. Let's 
work those

[[Page S1140]]

children and see what the market does. Let's let those workers go in 
and work in those dangerous places. If the market, if it is going to be 
that disruptive in terms of the employer, let's go ahead and do that.
  Well, we had decided at another time that we were not going to permit 
the exploitation of children or women in the workplace, and we were 
also going to insist on health and safety regulations and we were going 
to establish a basic floor, a basic floor, a minimum. It is not high 
enough even at $7.25, I don't believe myself, but that is the judgment 
that has been basically made by the Congress, by our side, the 
Democrats, and by a handful of Republicans, and we wish to see that 
raised. We wish to see that raised.
  I suppose you could take the good Senator's argument and logic and 
say: Well, we have increased our salaries $32,000, and they have a 
different cost of living, so maybe South Carolina ought to get less, if 
we want to follow that logic. We say: No, we are one country with one 
history and one destiny, and we are going--obviously, Members of 
Congress and Members of the Senate are going to be treated as they 
should be, and that is fairly, for the work they do.
  We say workers ought to be treated fairly for the work they do. 
Minimum standard. This amendment does injustice to that.
  I would mention there is obviously a disparity in the cost of living. 
I have mentioned what the Energy Information Administration says a 
worker across the country pays, on average, for gasoline, and that is 
$2.17 a gallon. In South Carolina, it is $2.13 a gallon. It is 3 cents 
more in my State of Massachusetts. I was going to get the basic 
indicators. Health care, the average cost for a family is going to be 
$11,000. Try and do that on $5.15 an hour--$11,000. It is probably a 
little more, closer to $12,000 in Massachusetts--but $11,000 for a 
family of four. Try and do that on $5.15. We have the housing charts up 
here. I would think that even $5.15 or $7.25 an hour for people who 
work hard in South Carolina, they are going to have a tight belt strap 
in providing for their children, providing for their food, and 
providing for their general well-being.
  But this does a major alteration and change to a very fundamental 
concept to what the minimum wage is all about, and I hope the Senator's 
amendment will not be successful and that our colleagues will vote no.
  Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 11 minutes 10 seconds for the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have 11 minutes 10 seconds. Well, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold the quorum call?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7 minutes 6 seconds.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you.
  Again, I thank the Senator for his good debate. I appreciate this 
opportunity. I think if we listen to what each other is saying--I 
appreciate the Senator's concern for South Carolina workers and I hope 
he appreciate my concern for Massachusetts. As Senator Kennedy has 
said, you set the livable wage in Massachusetts at over $11, so $7.50 
an hour for the minimum wage is certainly not acceptable. I do not 
think anyone would argue that that is enough, and we need to do better. 
I would hope no Member of the Senate would be concerned that a worker 
mandating over $7.50 is a problem, and particularly in high cost of 
living States.
  There are a number of things that have been said we need to think 
about because we put up that my amendment would cause States which have 
already passed their minimum wage to have to pay more. In fact, this 
underlying bill is going to do that to many States. There are many 
States in this country which have passed their own minimum wage that is 
over $5.15 but is under the current mandate in this bill. So when we 
pass it, we are going to override the legislatures and the people in 
many States. That is part of this whole argument.
  Now, in this day and time, with the varying costs of living across 
this country and 29 States already passing their own minimum wage, does 
it continue to make sense for us to establish a one-size-fits-all 
minimum wage for this whole country? I think not. But I do think if we 
are going to stand on the floor of the Senate and argue on behalf of 
the American worker, the minimum wage worker in this country, and 
promise to raise that minimum wage, then we should do it fairly and 
equitably across this country.
  Again, I encourage my colleagues to realize what this bill does is 
override States. That is the whole idea of the Federal minimum wage, to 
say we do not believe States will do the right thing, so we are going 
to. But if we are going to do the right thing, let's make it 100 
percent. Let's not make another false promise to the American people. 
If we are going to raise the minimum wage $2.10, let's do it across the 
entire country.
  So again, I appeal to my colleagues. If we are going to do it, let's 
do it right, let's do it fairly, and let's meet this promise to every 
American minimum wage worker.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam 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. Madam President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes 3 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think we had notified Members we 
would try and vote at half past, and I will certainly follow that 
guidance. I would say, as we wind up this debate on this particular 
amendment, the underlying legislation provides for an increase in the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. It is well understood by all of the 
Members. We are taking a good deal of time for those who differ with 
that as a concept. We have had those who have opposed it, who tried to 
circumvent it, to come up with ways to avoid it, and we are glad to 
deal with those issues. But nonetheless, this is an amendment now by my 
friend from South Carolina that would effectively undermine a very 
important concept that has been the basis of the minimum wage for over 
70 years and that is to establish a basic floor across this country, a 
basic floor for minimum wage, permitting States to raise--if they want 
to increase their wages, they can do that. If cities want to increase 
their wages, they can do that, such as my city of Boston, such as the 
District of Columbia, such as Baltimore, and such as other cities have 
done, and they have had very remarkable success in terms of the 
reduction of absenteeism, the continuation of workers remaining in 
employment, increasing productivity, and the rest. But that is a 
different issue for a different time.
  The Senator from South Carolina's amendment, in effect, says we will 
take this $2.10, which will be the value of the increase in the minimum 
wage, and add that to every State across the country. That is an 
entirely different concept. I, myself, find that certain parts of this 
are attractive to think that we do need to raise the minimum wage 
beyond the $7.25, but that is not the debate today. That is not the 
debate. That is not the issue. The basic issue is whether we are going 
to violate the very fundamental understanding we have, with regard to 
this issue at this time in this body now, and that is that we are going 
to pass a floor in this country applicable to all the States and raise 
it from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. That is the issue. The amendment of the 
Senator from South Carolina, however well-intentioned, does serious 
injury, disruption, and violence to that very basic and fundamental 
concept. I hope it will not be accepted in the Senate.
  We are approaching the time of 10:30, and we are very hopeful we will 
have a vote in relation to the amendment of the Senator from South 
Carolina in the next couple of moments.
  Madam President, I am prepared to yield back my time.
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

[[Page S1141]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable section 
of the Budget Act.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from 
South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 18, nays 76, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Allard
     Bennett
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Lott
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions

                                NAYS--76

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bond
     Cantwell
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 18, the nays are 
76. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have a good deal of business to do. 
Since some of these issues relate to the Finance Committee, we are 
working out with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley their proposal and 
schedule. There are several important amendments they are addressing 
and working out. We expect to have action on those, if not in the very 
late morning, in the early afternoon.
  We had an amendment by Senator Sessions that we were looking forward 
hopefully to at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to compliment both sides on working 
on amendments. We have not had any shortage of amendments being 
offered. In fact, we have a whole bunch of people who would like to 
offer amendments that have already been filed. So it is not the usual 
problem of trying to get people to come down and offer amendments; it 
is a problem of being able to get some agreements so we can have votes 
on those amendments.
  Both sides are working diligently to try to get it set up so we can 
have a whole series of votes yet today and move along substantially on 
this legislation. Of course, what we are kind of waiting for is to get 
some assurance that there will be a small business tax package to 
offset the impact of this before we get some progress.
  But I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. MARTINEZ addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his suggestion of an 
absence of a quorum?
  Mr. ENZI. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 105 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 105 and ask 
for its immediate consideration. I ask that if it does not run afoul of 
what the bill managers were attempting to do at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Martinez] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 105 to amendment No. 100.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. 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 clarify the house parent exemption to certain wage and 
                           hour requirements)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. HOUSE PARENT EXCEPTION.

       Section 13(b)(24) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 212(b)(24)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``and his spouse''; and
       (2) in the matter following subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking ``and his spouse reside'' and inserting 
     ``resides'';
       (B) by striking ``receive'' and inserting ``receives''; and
       (C) by striking ``are together'' and inserting ``is''.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I simply wished to call up this 
amendment. I think it is a rather important amendment and is of great 
interest to me personally. It is offered in order to assist charitable 
organizations that look after children who are in need of foster care. 
It is an attempt to not allow a raise in the minimum wage to work 
against the opportunity for single individuals to continue to work with 
these young children in ways that are helpful to them.
  I have been urged to move this amendment by a number of not-for-
profit groups in Florida that care for children, groups such as the 
Children's Home Society. I think it is a rather important amendment, 
and I look forward to its consideration as we go forward.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation for my 
colleagues' efforts to do what, in their view, would help promote a 
better quality of life for the people of this great country. We are 
here to debate specifically a proposal to increase the minimum wage, 
but, in my view, we should aspire to more than a minimum wage for the 
workers across this country. Instead, we should work to provide the 
training and educational opportunities that will allow individuals 
across this great Nation to enter the workforce at perhaps minimum wage 
but, more importantly, to then move up the economic ladder.
  When we put ourselves in the position of Government rather than the 
market dictating wages, we will most certainly see some unintended 
effects of less opportunity for some of the very American workers whom 
we are attempting to help.
  Let's put this proposal in perspective. Research reveals that the 
negative effects of raising the minimum wage would, in fact, fall most 
heavily on the shoulders of the most vulnerable workers. Let me say 
that again. Research shows that the effects of raising the minimum 
wage--that is, of the Federal Government rather than the market 
dictating the wages at which employers must pay workers--that the 
burden would actually fall most heavily on the most vulnerable workers.
  When employers are forced to raise their costs in order to comply 
with a government mandate, they are most likely going to reduce the 
hours their workers can work or perhaps even lay

[[Page S1142]]

people off in order to meet their bottom line. Of course, they will 
also choose, if costs go up because government has increased the wages 
which an employer must pay, to retain their most skilled and 
experienced and productive employees, not the less skilled or lower 
wage earners. That is important because teenagers and those who are 
working on a part-time basis or who are just entering the workforce are 
the ones who predominantly receive the minimum wage under the status 
quo.
  So why in the world would government decide to put people out of 
work, presumably the very people whom this amendment is designed to 
help? We need to ask ourselves that question and come up with a better 
answer than I have heard so far.
  I saw a cartoon, which was really not funny, distributed a couple of 
days ago where an employer is talking to an employee. He says: I have 
good news and bad news. The good news is that the minimum wage has been 
increased, so you are going to get a pay raise. The bad news is you are 
fired.
  The point of the cartoon is--as I said, it is really not funny--that 
if fixed costs of employers go up, something has to give. And where 
that give actually impacts the workers is going to be, I am afraid, on 
the most vulnerable workers, the less educated, the less trained, and 
unfortunately, more often, on minorities and women, the very groups the 
advocates of this bill have said they want to help.
  Consider this statistic: Of the 75.6 million Americans who are paid 
by the hour, 1.9 million workers earn wages at or below the minimum 
wage. In other words, that is 2.5 percent of all hourly paid workers. 
So the debate we are having this week--and, presumably, will carry over 
to next week--will affect 2.5 percent of all hourly paid workers. The 
largest share of minimum wage earners include teenagers and young 
adults who have only entered the workforce. Based on the most recent 
data available, approximately one-fourth of minimum wage earners are 
teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19, and about one-half are between 
the ages of 16 and 24.
  Over the past few weeks, in anticipation of this debate, there have 
been a number of articles in national and State publications addressing 
this topic. Many of them have been very thoughtful and informative. One 
article that demonstrates the complexity of this issue, that there is 
actually more than meets the eye on this topic, was published by the 
Valley Morning Star in Brownsville, TX, a story about Belinda 
Campirano. Ms. Campirano, along with her sister, is an owner of Media 
Luna, a small restaurant in Brownsville, TX. Ms. Campirano has only one 
employee, whom she pays $6 an hour. And while she understands, from the 
standpoint of simple human compassion, the difficulty of getting by on 
$5.15 an hour, she also realizes that a government-mandated wage 
increase would put a significant dent into her operating budget, 
literally in her ability to keep the doors open and keep this 
individual, her single employee, on the payroll.
  There was also another great series of articles in the Washington 
Post, one on January 10 entitled ``Life at $7.25 an Hour, As House 
Prepares to Vote on Minimum Wage Increase, Issue is Complex for Those 
Who Earn or Pay That Amount.'' That article does an excellent job of 
cutting through the rhetoric and exposing the reality of what it is we 
are debating.
  I ask unanimous consent that both articles be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibits 1 and 2.)
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the numerous ways in which many of our 
colleagues have worked to improve this bill; significantly, the 
bipartisan work of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, 
certainly the good work of the minority manager of the bill, Senator 
Enzi, and numerous others to try to improve it, to try to ameliorate 
some of the unintended consequences of government-mandated wages. I 
support the small business package which is part of what we are 
attempting to do to provide a better bill, one that rounds out the 
provisions of the bill and one that actually produces intended effects, 
which are not to hurt small businesses, the primary engine of our 
economy.
  The fact is, small businesses employ about 70 percent of the workers 
in America today. Why would this body do anything that would actually 
put more people out of work? Well, the provisions of the legislation 
that came out of the Finance Committee, as modest as they are, 
represent a real attempt to try to round out and improve the bill in 
order to reduce the unintended impact, which would be to put people out 
of work, and to provide some regulatory and tax relief for small 
businesses, the employers that employ 70 percent of the people in the 
American workforce.
  Small business expensing allows mom-and-pop shops and entrepreneurs 
to reinvest in their businesses and grow and, in so growing, hire more 
people and create jobs, not just in my State of Texas but across the 
country. It will help locally owned businesses and other small 
enterprises make much needed improvements in their infrastructure, 
which will help them compete and improve their productivity. I have 
concerns, however, that while the minimum wage increase in this 
legislation is permanent, the regulatory and tax relief that is part of 
the package is only temporary and not permanent as well. Nevertheless, 
these fixes are necessary.
  But don't take it from me. Take it from people like Jonathan Meller 
who e-mailed me recently. Mr. Meller is the owner of Papa Murphy's 
pizza restaurant in Burleson, TX. He talked about the economics of a 
wage increase and what it would mean for his small business. Like a 
majority of employees slated to earn the minimum wage, Mr. Meller's 
employees are, true to the statistic I mentioned a moment ago, under 20 
years of age. Like many business owners, Mr. Meller operates in a free 
market. He believes in free enterprise. He believes in competition. 
Frankly, he doesn't appreciate the fact that government sticks its big 
finger right in the middle of his business and mandates that he pay 
wages that are above the market. Any government-mandated wage hike will 
have a dramatic impact on how he is able to do business and on the 
number of employees he is able to hire.
  Then there is William Goodman, the owner of Scooters in El Paso. Mr. 
Goodman has only one employee. If the minimum wage is raised, where 
does that leave him? Mr. Goodman says he will have no employees, if the 
government, rather than the market, forces him to increase the wages he 
pays his one employee. He says--and I take him as his word--he will not 
be able to absorb the additional cost that would go along with this 
legislation.

  My point is this: Raising the minimum wage and the taxes that come 
with it will similarly leave many employees without jobs. We need to 
think long and hard before we choose to impose this sort of regulation 
on small businesses. In the end, my hope is that we can come together 
with a sensible package that will enjoy bipartisan support; that will, 
according to the intentions of the authors, increase the minimum wage 
but also soften the blow on small business and thus protect the jobs of 
many workers who might otherwise be laid off.
  The important point, though, that this legislation misses is that the 
best way to increase the quality of life for workers in America is not 
just to raise the minimum wage. That puts a patch or a Band-Aid on what 
is a much more serious and larger problem. Education and workforce 
training are the best ways to increase the quality of life for 
America's workers instead of a wage increase that could hurt small 
businesses and consumers and, indeed, some of the very employees we are 
trying to help.
  We all understand--it is a given--that every American should receive 
a good-quality education. We must continue to pursue policies to ensure 
that this is not merely a dream but a reality. No one, though, should 
end their education just when they receive a diploma or degree. Indeed, 
the world has become so complex, competition has become so globalized, 
that we need to think of education as a lifelong learning experience. 
In that vein, I emphasize the importance of providing workers with the 
kinds of skills and talent and training they need, not only to earn the 
minimum wage but to earn

[[Page S1143]]

good living wages much higher than the minimum wage and the important 
role our universities, community colleges, trade schools, and workforce 
development centers play in providing the training and education 
necessary for thousands and thousands of people across this great 
country to improve their standard of living and to achieve their 
dreams.
  I strongly believe that joint workforce-education projects are 
critical to our efforts as our economy continues its upswing and as 
competition increases on a global scale. It is imperative that we focus 
our efforts not only on setting a wage that may be out of sync with 
market forces but literally on liberating people to achieve their 
dreams by giving them the skills necessary to earn higher wages which 
will allow them to enjoy the American dream. It is imperative that we 
do everything we can to provide this training through our colleges and 
universities, working with the private sector to try to develop 
programs relevant to the local economy and, hence, jobs that are 
available in the local economy, and thus increase our competitiveness.
  This is not just a temporary or passing interest of mine. I have 
traveled across my State, as have many of my colleagues, to community 
colleges and have seen some of the effective partnerships that 
community colleges have entered into with local employers. Frankly, 
employers are wanting for lack of trained employees to fill job 
vacancies at much higher than the minimum wage. One stands out in my 
mind--a young woman I met at the Bell Helicopter plant in Amarillo, TX, 
by the name of Jeanette Hudson Gibbs. The reason I remember Ms. Gibbs 
is because she works on the assembly line for the V-22 tilt rotor at 
Bell Helicopter at their Amarillo plant. This is a young Hispanic 
woman, a single mother with a special needs child, who, before she went 
to work at Bell Helicopter on the assembly line for the V-22 tilt 
rotor, was a prison guard, a single mom. You can imagine the concerns 
her family had, not just about the fact that she was earning much lower 
wages but, in fact, the dangers associated with that job. Thanks to the 
great partnership Bell Helicopter had entered into with Amarillo 
Community College, Ms. Gibbs is now earning $16 an hour, and that was 
the last time I heard from her. It could be she is even doing better 
now because of the job skills she acquired through this partnership 
between Bell Helicopter and Amarillo Community College. This is a great 
success story of which I am proud. I know she must be proud of her 
accomplishments. And it is exactly the sort of emphasis we ought to be 
placing through legislation we pass on the floor.
  I worry that by looking at mandating minimum wages rather than 
focusing on workforce development and the kind of job training that is 
going to be able to produce more people like her, somehow we have not 
set our sights high enough.
  Last April, I hosted an event back in my home of Austin, TX. It is 
something we call the Texas Workforce Summit. This was a gathering of 
community college leaders from all across the State. The purpose of 
that was to learn more about Federal grant opportunities and to learn 
more about the successes of partnerships such as the one I just 
mentioned between Amarillo Community College and Bell Helicopter. 
Because of this initiative, Del Mar College in Corpus Christi applied 
for and received a grant of nearly $2 million to improve employment 
opportunities for technical employees in the aerospace industry. This 
is an even better story because Del Mar College has the same kind of 
workforce training partnership that I described a moment ago in 
Amarillo but this time in Corpus Christi. This is a workforce 
development program which Del Mar has entered into at the Corpus 
Christi Depot. The Corpus Christi Depot, for those who don't know, is 
the place where the military refurbishes and refits the military 
helicopters that are damaged through use in the conflicts in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a wonderful training program there 
through the same kind of partnership I mentioned a moment ago, which is 
creating a better way of life and a better opportunity for many workers 
there--and also, in a patriotic fashion, supporting our effort in the 
global war on terror.
  As you can tell, I have been a long advocate of these initiatives. I 
have taken the opportunity to visit these community colleges all across 
my State, in cities such as Austin, Houston, Pasadena, Laredo, 
Beaumont, Sherman, El Paso, Lubbock, and Victoria, to highlight the 
very thing I am talking about here on the floor of the Senate today. So 
I hope that as we move forward, we will not forget about the great 
promises community colleges hold in terms of workforce training and 
look to maybe setting our sights a little bit higher than we have been 
last week and this week in talking about minimum wage, when we ought to 
talk about how we can prepare people to earn much higher wages and, 
frankly, wages and jobs that go wanting for lack of a trained 
workforce.
  Just this last week, the National Journal highlighted community 
colleges as a true American success story. They have offered 
occupational skills training for decades and will continue to lead the 
effort to stimulate industry and job growth. This article says:

       Bridging the gaps between high schools and four-year 
     institutions and between employers and workers, two-year 
     community colleges will help determine how America fares in 
     the global economic competition.

  So I say it again, Mr. President: We should aspire to much more for 
the workforce in America, for the American worker, than just the 
minimum wage. Education and workforce training are the way forward to 
both increase the quality of life for more workers and provide a way 
for them to achieve their dreams.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                           Raising Questions


       many employers unsure about possible rise in minimum wage

                          (By Matt Whittaker)

       Brownsville.--Restaurant owner Belinda Campirano is torn 
     when asked to weigh in on what Congress should do about 
     raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from $5.15, where 
     it has been for a decade.
       She has only one $6-an-hour employee at Media Luna, the 
     Brownsville eatery I she and her sister own. Still, a 
     mandated wage increase would put a dent in her budget, she 
     said.
       But she empathizes with those supporting their families on 
     service industry wages. Her employee, who has a child and is 
     married to a waitress, sometimes works an extra job at 
     another restaurant to help make ends meet.
       ``I'm kind of sitting on the fence on it,'' Campirano said 
     of the minimum wage. ``I do believe we need to up it, but it 
     is going to impact small businesses. As an employer, it would 
     be tough for me if I had more employees.''
       Of 5.5 million hourly workers in Texas, 176,000 earned at 
     or below $5.15 an hour in 2005, according to Labor Department 
     data. The liberal Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, 
     D.C., think tank in favor of increasing the nation's base 
     pay, estimates 863,000 Texas workers would be directly 
     affected by a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour.
       More workers would be affected in the Rio Grande Valley 
     than in other parts of the country because the area has lower 
     wages, said Jose A. Pagan, a labor economist at the 
     University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg. In the second 
     quarter of 2006, Cameron County had the lowest average weekly 
     wages in the nation, at $484. Hidalgo County followed at $494 
     a week.
       On Jan. 10, the U.S. House passed a measure that would 
     increase the minimum wage to $7.25 in three stages over more 
     than two years. Passage of a companion bill introduced in the 
     Senate could hinge on tax breaks for businesses.
       The bill is expected to be brought up in the Senate this 
     week, and U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, 
     both Texas Republicans, support an increase if it is coupled 
     with tax help for small businesses.
       Proponents of the increase say it is a long overdue raise 
     for U.S. workers. A memorandum from the Economic Policy 
     Institute said business owners have received tax cuts since 
     1997 (when the last minimum wage increase took effect), 
     ``while minimum wage workers have been kept waiting at the 
     back of the line.''
       Opponents of a minimum wage increase say it would hurt 
     small businesses and the working poor alike and increase 
     unemployment.
       ``It's a bad thing for any area,'' said Jill Jenkins, chief 
     economist at the conservative Employment Policies Institute, 
     a Washington, D.C., think tank that opposes a minimum wage 
     increase.


                         EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS

       Jenkins says only a fraction of the benefits of such a 
     boost would go to the working poor. And if they earned more, 
     some could lose benefits like the earned income tax credit, 
     food stamps and housing.
       In extreme cases, some people could be worse off earning 
     $7.25 an hour than earning $5.15 an hour and getting the tax 
     credit, she said.

[[Page S1144]]

       ``It does cause job losses,'' Jenkins said. ``The 
     unemployment rates will go up.''
       That's because some firms will not hire as many workers as 
     labor costs go up, said Pagan, the UTPA labor economist. 
     Higher wages will attract more people to look for jobs, also 
     contributing to higher unemployment rates.
       Raising the minimum wage could, in theory, make 
     undocumented workers more attractive hires for employers 
     looking to save on labor costs, Pagan said. But many illegal 
     workers already are in formal sectors, getting paid the same 
     as everyone else.
       Some politicians and business owners are not strenuously 
     opposing a minimum wage increase, he said; salaries for most 
     workers already are higher than $5.15 an hour because it has 
     been so long since the last national raise.
       ``The impact of all of this is fairly minimal,'' Pagan 
     said. ``It's mostly symbolic or political more than anything 
     else.''
       Past increases in the minimum wage affected more workers, 
     he said.
       The last time the minimum wage went up, some businesses 
     feared it would hurt, said Dalia Rodriguez, director for 
     corporate communications at Edinburg-based WorkFORCE 
     Solutions, which is funded by the state's employer and labor 
     agency.
       ``There was some effect but not what we thought it was 
     going to be,'' she said.
       Nationally, there are some concerns about labor costs from 
     the small business community, said Sofia Hernandez, chief 
     executive of the Southwest Community Investment Corp., which 
     oversees the Small Business Administration-funded Women's 
     Business Center in McAllen. But she hasn't heard of any such 
     fears locally.
       ``It's important to the economy to have people earning 
     more, but I know on the business side it's a cost,'' she 
     said. ``So you have to balance those two issues.''
       As far as students at the University of Texas-Brownsville/
     Texas Southmost College who are paying for an education with 
     minimum wage work-study jobs are concerned, Congress should 
     raise the Nation's base pay.
       One, Ilianna Garza, a 19-year-old freshman biology student, 
     has been working 20 hours a week at the university's news and 
     information department since October. She earns $5.15 an hour 
     and says a raise would help her pay for books, gas and 
     clothes and save for the next semester.
       ``Every little bit helps, especially when you have to put 
     yourself through school,'' she said.
       At Media Luna restaurant in Brownsville, Campirano 
     contemplates how a higher Federal minimum wage would affect 
     her business and sole employee. Depending on whether tax 
     breaks are included in the proposed wage increase bill, 
     paying her worker more might mean taking money from her 
     advertising budget or upping the cost of a sandwich 20 cents.
       ``You don't want to raise prices because that's going to 
     deter people from coming to your establishment, but it's got 
     to come from somewhere,'' she said.
       On the other hand, ``There's no way anyone can live on 
     $5.15.''
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

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

                         Life at $7.25 an Hour


 As House Prepares to Vote on Minimum-Wage Increase, Issue Is Complex 
                for Those Who Earn, or Pay, That Amount

                           (By David Finkel)

       Atchison, Kan.--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 
     store, 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 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 years 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, lies said, going over his monthly

[[Page S1145]]

     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 is 
     $5.15, past Movie Gallery, where it's also $5.15, and stopped 
     in front of 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Dorgan be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by 
Senator Martinez for up to 5 minutes, and then the Senate resume 
consideration of the Ensign amendment No. 154; that the time for those 
statements last until 12:20, to be equally divided and controlled by 
Senators Ensign and Stabenow; that at 12:20, the Senate proceed to vote 
in relation to the Ensign amendment; provided further that no second-
degree amendment be in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been listening to my colleagues on 
this issue of the minimum wage and thinking about a time 70-some years 
ago that I read about when there was an initiative on the floor of the 
Congress

[[Page S1146]]

dealing with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act, which President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt wanted, was considered radical. They said it was going to 
injure business and there would be trouble in this country. That 
provision said, on behalf of America's workers, that employers ought to 
keep time records, ought to pay overtime for over a certain number of 
hours--the kinds of things you would expect. But once again, the sky 
was going to fall if this sort of thing was embraced. We have heard 
this every time we have had something on the floor of the Senate.
  My colleagues have talked about initiatives that are important. I 
think many of these initiatives are important. What about the 
initiative to help the people at the bottom rung of the economic 
ladder? It has been almost 10 years since the minimum wage has been 
increased. Yet it is unbelievable how difficult it is to pull it 
through this Chamber. The price for pulling it through the Chamber is 
to add additional tax breaks.
  There was a time when in this Chamber we considered tax breaks, 
saying to the biggest corporations in America that moved many of their 
jobs overseas: We want to give you the right--the only people in the 
country--to pay an income tax of 5\1/4\ percent. It will cost us $104 
billion in lost revenue to our Treasury, in my calculation. That went 
through like greased lightning. Did you hear anybody say: If we are 
going to give a $104 billion tax break to the biggest companies, maybe 
we ought to help the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. Oh, 
no, nobody wanted to leverage that because nobody cared about that.
  As I have described before, it is like the lyrics of the Bob Willis 
and the Texas Playboys song; it is the same thing that plays out in 
every situation. The lyrics are, ``The little bee sucks the blossom and 
the big bee gets the honey.'' In this case, the big guy gets the money. 
It is always the case in these debates.
  What about a maximum wage? We hear about a minimum wage, and the 
people at the bottom who have not had a raise for 10 years.
  This notion that I have heard all week, which is that this is impacts 
just a bunch of teenagers, is just not true. This is not a bunch of 
teenagers. Well over 70 percent of the workers who will benefit from 
the minimum wage are adults; 60 percent are women; 6.4 million children 
will benefit because their parents are working for the minimum wage. 
For a third of them, that is their sole family income. So it is just 
not true to come to the floor and banter around and say it is just a 
bunch of teenagers working.
  But if we are so concerned about the people at the bottom getting too 
much, let me make this point to you: Wages and salaries, which is the 
compensation given to workers in this country, are at their lowest 
levels as a percentage of GDP since they started keeping score in 1947. 
They are the lowest since they started keeping score. Now, why is that 
the case? There is plenty of income in this country, but it is going to 
others.
  I mentioned the maximum wage. Is there a maximum wage? Did anybody 
rush to the Senate floor to express concern when we read in the paper 
one morning that the head of Exxon got a $400 million buyout, or $400 
million in benefits, as he left his job? That is $150,000 a day in 
income. What is the minimum wage these days? It is about $40 a day. 
There is a lot of concern about that on the floor of the Senate. Maybe 
it will go to $50 a day for the folks at the bottom of the ladder in 
this economy of ours. Does anybody come over here and say: You know 
what, when I read that somebody gets $150,000 a day, I am concerned. 
No, it is just quiet; you can hear a pin drop in the Chamber about the 
issue of the maximum wages. It is unbelievable.
  The other day, $180 million was given to a person who was leaving a 
company because the company was displeased with his performance. I 
could spend a couple of hours here talking about those kinds of 
payouts. Nobody is talking about a maximum wage. I am not here talking 
about a maximum wage. Why so much concern about a minimum wage for the 
folks who work at the bottom in this country?
  I support expensing for small business investments in equipment and 
machinery, but why is this bill being held hostage for that sort of 
thing? I voted for that in other circumstances and will again. Why is 
it so hard to pull a minimum wage through this Chamber? It is really 
pretty bizarre.
  You know, I have watched people work in circumstances that are very 
difficult. We have a lot of people who work two and three jobs and work 
very hard. One day, I talked to a woman who was an unbelievable success 
story. She was working for very little money at the bottom of the 
ladder, cleaning toilets and the hallways of a very small college--a 
single mother with four kids, working right at the bottom. She thought: 
You know, somehow, some day, I want to graduate from this college. I 
was there when she did. I was a speaker at the commencement. She was 42 
years old and had four kids. She was wearing a cap and a gown and a 
smile, and she did it because we cared enough for Pell grants and the 
kinds of things that can give someone hope.

  The fact is that people who work at the bottom of the economic ladder 
for minimum wage have been lost and forgotten, particularly here. They 
are the people who make the beds in the hotels in which we sleep. They 
are the people who serve the food at the fast food places we frequent. 
They are people who work hard. They want an opportunity and a chance. 
After 10 years, this bill isn't a major policy change; this is an 
obligation this Congress has had for years, which it has ignored. Now 
we bring it to the floor of the Senate, and we are told that the price 
for this is additional tax breaks. The only way you will help somebody 
at the bottom after 10 years is to give additional tax breaks.
  Go back and look at the tax breaks that have been given. I just 
mentioned one, by the way--a 5\1/4\ percent income tax rate. There is 
no one listening to this debate who is paying 5\1/4\ percent. Everyone 
is paying more than that. But the biggest corporations in America got 
to pay 5\1/4\ percent on income they earned overseas in plants where 
often they sent American jobs. They get to pay 5\1/4\ percent on income 
they earn there. That is the break they get. Nobody else gets that. 
That went through here very easily. Nobody is going to hold that 
hostage; my gosh, that benefits the folks at the top.
  Let me make one other point that I think is important. The very 
people who are opposed to a minimum wage--George Will says the minimum 
wage ought to be zero, by the way. That is all right for him because he 
is not earning the minimum wage. But the very people in this Chamber 
who are opposed to a minimum wage, if you go back and check the votes, 
are the ones who have voted for a tax incentive or tax break for the 
companies that ship their jobs overseas.
  That is easy to track, by the way, because we have had four votes on 
that--to shut down that pernicious, unbelievable tax break. We say to a 
company: Shut your manufacturing plant down, fire your workers, move 
your production to China, and we will give you a big fat tax break. We 
have tried to get rid of that four times, and four times we have 
failed.
  The same colleagues who are so concerned about helping people at the 
bottom with a very reasonable adjustment in the minimum wage after 10 
years are the very same people who said: We want to continue a tax 
break to ship American jobs overseas.
  I am just telling you that everybody has a right to their opinion, 
and I will respect it. But I certainly have a right to say I believe it 
is wrong. I believe it is bad policy for this country. This economic 
engine works best when everybody works. There is no social program in 
this country as important as a good job that pays well. We all 
understand that. We also understand there are a lot of jobs in this 
country with substantial downward pressure on income because of this 
so-called globalization by which the largest enterprises can go find 
the lowest paid workers anywhere in the world and move their jobs, 
putting downward pressure on American workers' income. We know what is 
happening in the workplace.
  Let me end as I started, by saying that salaries and wages, which is 
the income workers in this country get, are at their lowest percentage 
of our economy since they started keeping score in 1947. It doesn't 
take a rocket

[[Page S1147]]

scientist to interpret that. If the interpretation of that doesn't 
persuade one that we have an obligation to do something for the people 
working at the bottom of the economic ladder for the minimum wage, then 
I don't know what would persuade them.
  Finally, this is not about teenagers. No matter how often you say it, 
that does not make it true.
  This is not about teenagers. Over 70 percent of the people on the 
minimum wage are adults, many of them with children, 60 percent of them 
women, a third of them working as their only job and their only income 
for their family. Those are the facts.
  There is one other fact that is certain. There is no one in this 
Chamber--no one in this Chamber--who puts on a dark suit in the morning 
and goes to work for a minimum wage. No one in this Chamber understands 
the requirement to work for a minimum wage at two or three jobs to try 
to keep your family going. But there are a lot of people in this 
country who do understand, and they wake up every morning hoping and 
praying that somehow they will get a fair break and get a fair wage.
  Productivity is going up in this country, and we are blessed by that. 
But the income for workers who have become more productive has lagged 
way behind. And I wonder why. I guess we know the answer. This country 
is a better country if we understand that the share of wealth and the 
share of income in this country ought to go to those who deserve it. 
And if American workers are much, much, much more productive--and they 
have been--then they also deserve a fair share of this country's 
income. That has always been the case.
  In the last century, the kinds of things we have done to make this a 
better place in which to work--safe workplace, child labor, minimum 
wage, the right to organize, and a range of issues--have strengthened 
this country and made this a better country.
  This legislation that we are considering today is also legislation 
that will strengthen this country and do the right thing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.


                           Amendment No. 105

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, the amendment that I called up earlier, 
amendment No. 105, is one that touches on a little different issue. I 
had hoped there would be a bipartisan consensus base. It involves 
children and youth in our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our 
Federal wage laws, coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are 
financially crippling nonprofit organizations and institutions that 
make up a necessary part of our communities' support systems for the 
most vulnerable in our society--the children.
  More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any 
given time because their own families are in crisis or unable to 
provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been 
subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most are able to be placed 
with individual caring families. But for children without a suitable or 
available foster family, they are placed in one of the many group homes 
associated with our foster care system.
  Many of these group homes are specially tailored with the specific 
needs of foster care children, offering unique programs and onsite 
education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced.
  These homes--often run by private, nonprofit organizations--are 
dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the so-called 
orphans of the living, and they have long been a vital part of the 
social service networks in America's communities.
  An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of 
caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional 
parenting, the house parents of group foster homes seek to provide the 
same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five 
to eight children who reside with them.
  House parents volunteer to permanently reside at a group home in 
order to create a family-like environment for those without a true 
sense of home, one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most 
vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of 
society.
  Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and 
lifelong connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest 
role in helping foster children transition into society.
  However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing 
group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children 
and preventing them from providing the most consistent care. These 
youth so desperately need the stability that a family-like situation 
can provide, and that is what my amendment seeks to address.
  Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, house parents 
have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of 
charge. In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role 
house parents serve when it passed the Hershey exemption. This amended 
the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of 
compensation for house parents and allowed the lodging and food 
provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary 
for married house parents serving with their spouse at nonprofit 
educational institutions.
  Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital 
social services to continue to be provided by nonprofit organizations 
in a way that is cost-effective and at the same time appropriate and 
meaningful to both the children and the house parents.
  However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of 
America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now 
shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they 
may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single 
house parent of the same sex. Our labor standards for these group homes 
have not kept pace with the ever-changing needs of these children.
  Because the Hershey exemption was only extended to married couples, 
group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what 
is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the 
situation place these facilities in a compromising situation.
  You see, when a group home employs a single house parent for a home, 
they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married 
house parents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried 
employees.
  As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 
annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time single 
house parent using the traditional live-in model.
  In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of house parents 
who work in 8-to-12-hour shifts just to avoid the additional cost of 
overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough 
coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also 
destroys the family-like arrangement of the home.
  If the minimum wage bill, to which I am offering this amendment, 
passes, it would cost facilities across the United States in excess of 
$84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time house parent 
in a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a 
married couple serving in the same environment, it would only require 
minimum wage guidelines be met.
  Can you see, Mr. President, how this inconsistency in our labor laws 
is, and will continue to be, crippling for the private, nonprofit 
facilities?
  In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and 
consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment 
will extend the Hershey exemption to single house parents, allowing 
them to be treated as salaried employees when free lodge and board are 
provided.
  Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, nonprofit group 
homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities 
with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children.
  Voting against this amendment--that is, allowing it not to be 
adopted--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these 
facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have 
to scale back on the number of children they can help.
  To vote against this amendment--or to not allow it to be adopted--is 
to

[[Page S1148]]

turn children out on the street at a time when they need us most.
  As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my 
children. I want to make sure they have whatever they need to overcome 
all the obstacles life may throw at them. And I also know what it means 
to be a foster child.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute in 
which to conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I conclude with this. I had the 
experience in life of being a child in foster care for 4 years. I was 
fortunate to have had two different loving families that cared for me. 
During that time, I also had the benefit of two parents working to help 
me. I have maintained, until their deaths, relationships with three of 
these four loving foster parents, and one of them today struggles for 
life in a hospital in Tampa, FL, Eileen Young. I pray for her speedy 
recovery.
  However, these people made a difference in my life at a time when it 
mattered. I hope we are not going to deny today those children who need 
that care of a foster environment to have their lives complicated by 
what the unintended effect of the minimum wage will be.
  I urge the adoption of amendment No. 105 so we can continue this type 
of loving foster care relationship for the children of Florida and 
throughout the United States who so desperately need it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 154

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, not seeing the sponsor of the Ensign 
amendment in the Chamber, I will proceed to speak on his amendment. I 
am sure he will be coming to the floor at some point, but I wish to 
proceed at this point to speak about this amendment because I have 
great concern about the approach put forward in the Ensign amendment.
  My colleague from North Dakota spoke a few moments ago about the 
challenge we face as it relates to a global economy and whether in 
America we are going to have an American strategy for everyone to do 
well, to keep our middle class, to keep opportunity for people who want 
to work hard to move into the middle class.
  This amendment, I believe, falls into that broad category of where 
are we going to create opportunity; how are we going to make sure 
everybody has the opportunity to have health care as part of that great 
American dream.
  What I see happening overall is a strategy that has been put in place 
right now that certainly I do not support and I believe the majority of 
people in the majority in the Senate do not support. This basically 
creates a race to the bottom saying to workers: If you only work for 
less, pay more in health care, and lose your pension, we can be 
successful. We all know that is a losing strategy because there is 
always going to be somebody in another country who can work for less, 
who will work for less.
  What we want to do is trade in a global economy, create an 
opportunity for other countries to move up to our standard of living--
fair trade, addressing health care in a way that moves it off business 
but creates health care for everyone, investing in education, 
innovation, and opportunity and that great American engine.
  I say that as a backdrop because, unfortunately, this amendment on 
HSAs, health savings accounts, moves us in the opposite direction. 
Senator Ensign's proposal would spend an additional $8 billion on 
health savings accounts. There is no good evidence that HSAs are 
successful at expanding coverage or controlling costs. In fact, many 
believe that HSAs may do the opposite. They make health care coverage 
less affordable for those who really need it, encouraging healthy 
people to leave comprehensive health care and go to these kinds of 
high-deductible plans.
  This amendment would permit individually purchased high-deductible 
policies to be financed with HSA funds, encouraging more healthy people 
to move to high-deductible policies in the individual market. What does 
that mean?
  We know that HSAs have deductibles of at least $1,000 for an 
individual and $2,000 for a family. We also know that someone who has a 
sick child, a disabled child, someone who has high health indicators, 
health risks, somebody who is a baby boomer or older may not be able 
choose to have a high-risk policy because they know they are going to 
need their health insurance, they are going to need comprehensive 
health care.
  So who chooses an HSA? Someone younger, healthy, or wealthier where 
they can get a better deductible and the $1,000 out of pocket doesn't 
matter to them. I find it ironic that we would be putting such a 
proposal on a minimum wage bill.
  We certainly know that minimum wage workers are not those who can 
take the risk of a health savings account and have the confidence that 
they will have up to $1,000 to put into their health care before their 
coverage kicks in.
  In fact, we know from GAO that for those earning under $30,000 a 
year, about 16 percent of tax filers have a health savings account 
contribution, but for those earning $75,000 or above, that is 51 
percent of the filings.
  Even in that category, though, we also know, according to the 
Commonwealth Fund, that over 40 percent of people with a $1,000 
deductible reported that even though they had a medical problem, they 
didn't see a doctor. They didn't fill a needed prescription or they 
skipped a recommended test or followup visit because they didn't want 
to have to pay directly the full amount for that under this deductible. 
What happens in that circumstance we all know. Someone waits until they 
get really sick, so health care costs go up because people didn't get 
the care they need--the prevention, the tests, and so on.

  Mr. President, I ask when I am within 5 minutes of the time for the 
majority side that the Chair indicate that to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. We are in a situation now where we have to decide, are 
we going to continue health insurance for what it should be, which is 
pooling the risk? The whole idea of insurance is to pool the risk. We 
want healthy, younger individuals, we want my son and daughter who are 
healthier and younger, to buy into the same plan that I am buying into, 
that the Presiding Officer is buying into, that others who are older 
are buying into, so that we pool that risk. We may not need that health 
care as frequently as our mom and dad or aunt and uncle or your 
neighbor or colleague who has a health problem, but their ability to 
get health coverage is kept at a reasonable cost because the risk is 
pooled. That is what health insurance is all about.
  That is what auto insurance is all about. We don't have auto 
insurance where we have a pool only for people we know are going to 
have an accident and those over here whom we know are not. We pool the 
risk. This particular amendment expands a concept, a proposal that 
breaks that apart. It basically encourages people who can afford it, or 
who are going to gamble because they are very healthy, that they are 
not going to need any kind of health care this coming year. They get a 
tax benefit. They get to write off a premium for a high-deductible plan 
as long as it is in the individual market. But someone, in fact, who is 
likely to be sick or does have children or does have more risk factors 
or more need to see the doctor doesn't get the same benefit.
  That makes absolutely no sense to me. Certainly, when we look at how 
we, as America, move forward on health care, that moves in the opposite 
direction from where we need to go, of pooling the risk. We need to be 
pooling it even further. We need to be creating large pools so we are 
pooling the risk and lowering the cost, not doing what this talks 
about.
  I appreciate the great pressure we all feel right now to address 
health care, as we should, as we must. I believe it is the single 
driving factor for our businesses. I know in the State of Michigan, 
with many people working in manufacturing, and those people very 
concerned about the global economy and how we are going to compete, the

[[Page S1149]]

question of health care and how we fund health insurance becomes a 
competitiveness issue. It is costing us jobs, the way we structure the 
funding of health care. We also know we pay more because of the way we 
fund it.
  Every single time somebody with a high-deductible policy, somebody 
who knows they have a $1,000 deductible, decides they are getting a 
little bit sick, if they don't believe they have the money or want to 
spend the money to go through their insurance plan they are going to go 
to the emergency room when they are sick. Who pays when that happens? 
We all pay. The hospital treats them and then they turn around and 
raise the rates on everybody with insurance. That is how we get a $20 
aspirin. That is how we get all these costs that are shifted onto 
everyone else.
  When the Commonwealth Fund says over 40 percent of the people with 
these kinds of policies don't get their medical problems addressed or 
skip a doctor or a prescription or recommended test, that means we are 
talking about individuals who are more likely to be very ill, more 
likely to walk into that emergency room, more likely to have their 
costs shifted onto everyone else.
  I urge my colleagues not to proceed with this kind of proposal. I 
thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for his willingness to 
seriously address the issues of health care. We intend, in the Finance 
Committee, to have a series of hearings. Our chairman, who is a very 
thoughtful, thorough individual, I know will be looking at a wide 
variety of proposals. We need the opportunity to do that. My opposition 
to this proposal does not mean that I don't believe health care is at 
the top of the list on priorities. I do. But we need the opportunity to 
look at all of the ramifications because what we have seen to date is 
that this kind of proposal moves us in exactly the opposite direction.
  We know a number of things that we can do that would take $8 billion 
and add health insurance for people. We have colleagues--Senator Durbin 
and Senator Lincoln--who have offered a proposal for national pooling 
of small businesses to be able to buy into systems nationally to be 
able to lower costs. Other colleagues have proposals as well. We know 
we are going to have proposals to extend children's health care before 
us very shortly. Again, I commend our chairman for his commitment to 
the issue of expanding children's health care to all children. That is 
an important way for us to be able to spend $8 billion and be able to 
provide health care to more children, more families, and to lower 
costs--not raise costs.
  Senator Snowe and I are working on a proposal, with our distinguished 
friend from Wyoming as well, on health IT. We know we can dramatically 
save costs and put money back into the provision of health insurance 
paying for health care by using health information technology. I think 
a more productive way to spend $8 billion at this point would be to 
provide tax incentives for our physicians and other private sector 
providers to be able to help them purchase hardware and software, to be 
able to do ``e-prescribing,'' to be able to use technology and have all 
the benefits both from a quality standpoint and saving lives as well as 
saving dollars.
  At this point I would simply say that I believe very strongly that 
HSAs are the wrong direction in which to go fundamentally. They do not 
expand who receives health insurance, they do not lower costs, and I 
believe very strongly that there are other ways to use $8 billion. The 
Finance Committee, I have every confidence, is going to look at a wide 
variety of opportunities, including expanding health insurance for 
children.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Most of the analyses of health benefit accounts say they 
primarily benefit people who are healthy and wealthy, and it seems to 
me the challenge for health insurance in America is for those in the 
lower income categories, and particularly those who may be 
vulnerable from a health situation. It seems putting more money into a 
plan that helps people who are doing fairly well in comparison to 
others is not the right investment at this moment.

  I wonder if the Senator from Michigan agrees with that.
  Ms. STABENOW. I absolutely agree with our distinguished assistant 
majority leader. Let me say I indicated a moment ago that he has a 
better proposal himself, and Senator Lincoln. We know for the majority 
of people who are not insured, 80 percent of those who are uninsured 
work for small businesses. I am very excited about the approach that 
the Senator has proposed in terms of a national pool and a tax credit 
to help fund it. I think we all are very committed to expanding health 
care coverage and to doing it the right way.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Michigan will yield on that point, 
Senator Lincoln and I and many others have introduced a bill to help 
small businesses buy the same kind of health insurance that is 
available to Members of Congress. If it is good enough for us, it is 
good enough for America. Some 250 private insurance companies across 
America sell insurance to Federal employees and to Members of Congress. 
What we want to do is make that insurance available to small 
businesses. The $8 billion in this bill could be used to help small 
businesses pay for the health insurance premiums of lower income 
employees. Instead of focusing on the healthy and wealthy, we would be 
focusing on businesses that want to do the right thing and need a 
helping hand from the Tax Code.
  I ask the Senator from Michigan, if we are going to invest money to 
try to deal with 48 million uninsured and underinsured Americans, 
wouldn't it be better to expand opportunities for small business than 
to focus on those among us who are already pretty well off?
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank my friend. I couldn't agree more. I think he 
very eloquently stated what is in front of us. We have 8 billion 
precious dollars in the middle of a deficit, and we have to be very 
strategic about where we put our dollars. The proposal for small 
business pooling is similar to what we receive. I think that is the 
least we can do for small business, particularly when we know that 80 
percent of the people who do not have health insurance are in small 
businesses.
  I thank my colleague. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
want very much to address this issue of health care. It is a question 
of how we do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask in closing at the moment that we, at a minimum, 
withhold on this amendment; that we not proceed on this particular 
proposal to allow us on the Finance Committee to look at all of the 
options, to look at the facts, to look at what actually expands 
coverage, what actually lowers costs, and do this together. This is 
something we need to do on a bipartisan basis, and I hope we will do 
this in a very positive way so that when we are spending $8 billion, we 
know we are getting every single penny of value out of that for people 
who desperately need health care today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Can I inquire as to the time remaining? I was under a 
little different impression on the time to vote, I guess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 21 minutes. The 
Senator from Michigan has 4 minutes 20 seconds. The Senator from 
Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I had hoped that the discussions that are happening on 
health care would continue to happen and that they would not be a focus 
of this particular bill. But, again, until we get some assurance that 
there is going to be a tax package that provides for some of the impact 
for small business, we will be discussing a variety of topics. I can 
tell by the amendments that have been put in.
  I need to do some clarification on this particular amendment. While I 
encourage people to keep working across the aisle on a whole variety of 
proposals, this particular amendment deals with helping to pay premiums 
for high-deductible plans in the individual market, not in the group 
market. This is in the individual market. I think everybody who works 
with health care pretty much agrees that one of the difficulties we 
have with health care is that primarily the premiums are paid

[[Page S1150]]

for by companies that get a huge tax deduction for doing that. When the 
premiums are paid for that way, the insurance is paid for that way, 
there isn't nearly as much responsibility on the part of the individual 
to see that they are getting the best care at the lowest cost. It has 
allowed the system to blossom and grow.
  But this particular amendment deals with the individual nongroup 
market. At the present time, while we allow companies to deduct 
anything they put in for premiums, we don't allow individuals to do 
that. We do allow individuals to buy health savings accounts. That 
means they pay a premium for a high deductible, which helps to bring 
down that premium and puts people in a market that they could not have 
been in before. But the part that they get the deduction on is the part 
that covers the deductible, the high deductible. They can put that in a 
savings account, and they can actually roll that over from year to year 
if they don't have to use the deductible on it. But nobody helps them 
with the tax on their premium.
  For most people it is the premium that is the biggest cost. For 
individuals it is the premium that is the biggest cost. If they work 
for a company that provides insurance, they don't have that cost. But 
if they are an individual, they get taxed on the money they pay to pay 
their premium.
  What this amendment is suggesting is that we need to level the field 
a little bit, and while they are paying a smaller premium on a high 
deductible and allowed to deduct the portion that would be the 
deductible, if they put that in a savings account, allowing them to 
take part of that savings account and pay it for the premium so that 
their premium would also be deductible.
  I don't know where the $8 billion comes from. There is not a formal 
score on this, but there is a 2006 informal opinion from the Treasury 
staff. It indicates that the cost is probably going to be about $50 
million over 5 years, which is pretty modest compared even to the cost 
of other proposals for HSA expansion. The intent and effect would be to 
make this HSA high-deductible option more easily available and 
affordable outside of the employment context.
  We have to admit, if it is an individual buying the policy, it is the 
most portable there is in the United States. We also talked about the 
need for portability. When someone loses their job there are some ways 
they can still get insurance, but that runs out. But if you have a 
health savings account, that is completely portable. It goes with you. 
The whole works goes with you.

  There are some small businesses that have been taking advantage of 
this and paying the premium for their employees and then paying a 
portion of the deductible that goes into a savings account. They found 
that this is the only mechanism by which they could afford insurance 
for their employees. So we are not even talking about those folks 
because this is about ones in the individual market, which limits it 
considerably.
  Everyone recognizes the difficulties with health care costs and 
obtaining health care coverage in the United States, and real solutions 
to this growing problem has to allow individuals and families to make 
decisions based on their unique health care needs too. We can't just 
limit health care to those who work for particularly big corporations 
who, also, are having problems being able to fund the insurance they 
are buying for their people. The cost is dramatically escalating in the 
health care area. I think it is the No. 1 concern of people across the 
United States.
  We have a lot of proposals that will help to bring down or at least 
stabilize those costs. I appreciate the help we have had from people on 
both sides of the aisle in coming up with those proposals. A lot of 
times we have agreed on principle and now we are trying to get down to 
details and the detail is always the tough part, but I think we can 
make some progress.
  I am for choices. I am for individuals and families having more 
options for obtaining health care insurance. I think more options help 
to bring down the cost; it is a competition factor. For that reason, I 
support Senator Ensign's amendment to provide more choices to allow 
individuals and families who work--not the ones working for companies 
where the company is getting a tax deduction to buy their insurance. 
This is for the individuals and families so they will have additional 
options for obtaining health care coverage, especially when the 
employer does not provide adequate options for health insurance. 
Senator Ensign's amendment does that. It provides more choices by 
allowing individuals without employer-based health coverage to use 
funds from their health savings to pay for their high-deductible health 
plan premiums. Right now they only get to use the money they have in 
savings to take care of deductibles. We would like for them to be able 
to take care of some of the premiums, too, which takes some of the 
pressure off that end, and since most people in the country already get 
that benefit through their company, which gets the tax deduction, we 
thought it would be nice if individuals had that too.
  I think this is a modest proposal, with an estimated score of $50 
million over 5 years. There will not be a lot of people who will take 
advantage of it, but there will be some people who will take advantage 
of it, and it will provide additional options for individuals and 
families without employer-based health coverage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am wondering whether my friend from 
Michigan would yield me the last 4 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield the balance of the time to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment does nothing to help 
working families, especially those earning the minimum wage. It is a 
travesty that we are debating more tax breaks for the wealthy who use 
health savings accounts as another way to shelter their income when we 
should be talking about a long overdue pay increase for working 
families.
  The real-world impact of this amendment is one more tax break that 
makes health savings accounts, already the most tax-preferred accounts 
in history, even more alluring to those who are healthy and wealthy. It 
seems my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have yet to run out 
of more sweeteners for wealthy health savings account holders.
  We shouldn't spend another dime on health savings accounts. At the 
same time, there is no money--no money--for health care for children of 
those who are poor or frail, there is no limit to the money they want 
to spend for new tax breaks for the wealthy.
  Health savings accounts don't work for working families. A minimum 
wage worker who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, makes 
$10,712. The deductible for a high-deductible family plan can be as 
much as $11,000--more than the worker makes in a year. And that is just 
the deductible, that doesn't even include the premiums.
  These accounts are no solution for working families who are uninsured 
or underinsured. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 
compared with those with traditional comprehensive insurance, families 
using high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts were 
less than half as likely to have been uninsured before being covered by 
their current plan. Instead, those opening health savings accounts are 
more likely to be healthy and wealthy and switching to a health savings 
account to take advantage of tax breaks. Do we understand? Do we 
understand the growth in the health savings are for people who are 
already insured? This doesn't do anything for workers, let alone 
minimum wage workers. Why does the increase in the minimum wage have to 
be--have to carry the burden of providing a tax break for the 
wealthiest individuals in this country? Why don't we put this on some 
other program? Why is it the hardest working Americans at the lowest 
end of the economic ladder have to be out there and to have a sweetener 
for the wealthiest individuals? Why is it, Mr. President? That is what 
this amendment is all about.
  The GAO found the average income of those using health savings 
accounts was $133,000--three times that of all tax filers. That is the 
average income of use. We are trying to get an increase in

[[Page S1151]]

the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25, and our friends on the other side 
want to have a tax break for those whose average income is $133,000. We 
know our Republican friends are opposed to an increase in the minimum 
wage. Isn't a vote against it enough? Do you have such disdain for 
hard-working Americans who are earning the minimum wage that you have 
to file these kinds of amendments? Put it on your tax extenders. That 
is what the health savings accounts were on before. Put it on that. Why 
take it out on hard-working Americans who are at the lower end of the 
economic ladder?
  These plans don't work for working families because the high out-of-
pocket costs associated with the high-deductible plan leaves these 
families at great financial risk. It's no wonder that over half of all 
bankruptcies in America are caused by patients unable to pay their 
medical bills.
  Of those who go bankrupt due to medical expenses, 75 percent had 
health insurance but found it didn't cover the care they needed when 
they got sick. Health savings accounts contribute to this, with those 
who are in high-deductible health plans with the accounts twice as 
likely to spend 5 percent or more of their income on medical costs and 
twice as likely to delay or avoid needed health care as those with 
traditional health plans.
  The large majority of low- and moderate-income working families who 
are given no choice but a high-deductible plan can't afford to fund a 
health savings account. And many employers don't contribute to their 
employee's accounts, and if they do, the contributions are well below 
the funds needed to meet the high deductible.
  While more than half of those with incomes above $50,000 contribute 
$1,000 or more annually to their accounts, more than two-thirds of 
those with lower incomes contribute less than $1,000, and more than 
one-quarter are unable to contribute any money to their account.
  Even if they manage to come up with money to put into their account, 
those with lower incomes are disadvantaged because of the 
regressiveness of the tax code. A family of four earning $20,000 who 
manages to scrape together $1,000 gets no tax advantage for their 
contribution, while a family earning $120,000 gets a $3l0 tax 
reduction.
  The inequity only increases with higher contributions. In the 
unlikely event that a family earning $20,000 was able to contribute 
$5,450, last year's maximum contribution, would still get no tax 
advantage for their contribution, while a family earning $120,000 would 
receive a tax break of $1,667.
  It's no surprise that a study late last year by the Government 
Accountability Office found that health savings accounts were being 
disproportionately used by those with high incomes. The GAO found that 
the average income of those using health savings accounts was $133,000, 
almost three times that of all tax filers. And account holders in a 
health savings account focus group acknowledged that many were using 
their health savings accounts to shelter income.
  Finally, the GAO noted that:

       when individuals are given a choice between HSA-eligible 
     and traditional plans . . . HSA-eligible plans may attract 
     healthier individuals who use less health care or, as we 
     found, higher-income individuals with the means to pay higher 
     deductibles and the desire to accrue tax-free savings.

  The adverse selection that would result will raise premiums for 
working families in traditional plans, increasing the likelihood they 
will join the ranks of the uninsured.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Promoting health 
savings accounts is bad health policy, it is bad tax policy, and it 
does nothing to help low- and moderate-income working families.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we are debating about whether to raise the 
Federal minimum wage in our country. I think that people on both sides 
of the aisle have agreed that it is time to raise the minimum wage in 
this country. But health care is an important issue, and ensuring that 
health care is more affordable, available, and accessible affects a lot 
more people in the United States than does the minimum wage. So at the 
same time we are helping some in our society, shouldn't we be looking 
at ways to help many more Americans obtain health care that is 
accessible, affordable, and available?
  Our health care system does not work to keep costs down and quality 
up because the people who actually receive health care services are not 
responsible for paying for the services. The vast majority of people 
receive health care through their employer and have low-deductible 
policies. This provides no incentive to shop for better prices or high 
quality of care. If there was such an incentive, most people would shop 
for better prices and better quality. However, many people are covered 
by a health insurance plan where they are told where to go and which 
doctor to see. These individuals do not shop for quality or for price. 
Market forces can improve both the quality of medicine and the cost of 
medicine in the United States. Health savings accounts are an example 
of one instrument that can bring the idea of market forces into the 
health care field.
  I can use several examples to illustrate how insurance can provide 
the wrong incentives for people, ultimately driving up costs and 
utilization. Try to imagine if your homeowners policy was similar to 
what our health care policies are today. In other words, try to imagine 
if your homeowners insurance covered items beyond the structure of your 
home if it was damaged and destroyed. For example, what if your 
homeowners policy covered painting the trim on your house or doing the 
yard maintenance. If that were the case, what would happen? Well, all 
of us would paint the trim on our houses a lot more often. And, all of 
us would probably have landscapers instead of doing the yard work 
ourselves. As a result, the cost of all of our homeowners insurance 
would skyrocket.
  We have seen the cost of health insurance skyrocket for the last 
several decades. As the cost of health care increases every year, 
faster than inflation, more and more Americans are becoming uninsured. 
So, in order to try to drive down the cost of health insurance, health 
savings accounts were created. These accounts allow individuals with a 
high deductible health insurance plan to set aside money, tax-free, up 
to a set limit, to use for routine medical expenses. Health savings 
accounts allow individuals to shop for quality and for price.
  With the health care system we have today, employers, who pay most of 
the costs, indicated that something had to be done about the high cost 
of health care. As a result, health maintenance organizations were 
created. HMOs were supposed to help manage care, but became more about 
managing costs. HMOs are not viewed positively by most of the American 
people. Individuals who are enrolled in HMOs often don't have a lot of 
choice when it comes to picking a doctor. These individuals also do not 
get to spend a lot of time with their doctor because their doctors are 
paid on what is called a capitated rate. This means that doctors are 
paid a certain amount of dollars per patient.
  The more patients these doctors can move through their offices, the 
better off they do. As a result, the doctor-patient relationship has 
been hurt.
  Health savings accounts allow you to walk into the doctor's office 
with your own money, so you will want your doctor to spend appropriate 
time with you. Health savings accounts do something else fairly 
wonderful. Since 30 to 35 percent of our health care costs today are 
spent in the bureaucracy of paying the bills, every single doctor's 
office has to hire people to collect the bills. With a health savings 
account, you are paying for your care at the time of your visit. As a 
result, you are not spending all of your money in an HMO, where there 
are layers of administration when it comes to billing. Health savings 
accounts go a long way toward eliminating a lot of the bill collecting 
that is conducted, and the money that is saved can go into providing 
better quality of health care in the United States.
  My amendment is simple. It would make health savings accounts more 
attractive. It would make it easier for people to get health care 
coverage by allowing people to use their pre-tax Health Savings Account 
dollars to pay for health premiums. I believe my amendment will 
encourage more people to adopt health savings accounts.

[[Page S1152]]

  Now that Federal employees are eligible for health savings accounts, 
my family and I signed up for our own health savings accounts. We 
actually had some health care issues with our children this last month. 
So my wife has been spending a lot of time talking with doctors. I told 
her to negotiate for prices and talk about quality and all of the 
various things that shoppers do in the marketplace. When market forces 
are brought in--whether it is with regard to cars, airplanes, or 
computers--costs not only go down, but quality goes up.

  I have introduced this amendment today to urge more health savings 
accounts, so there are more market forces brought into our current 
health care system. My amendment will make health care more affordable 
and more accessible. It may also reduce the number of uninsured.
  If we can bring the cost of health care down, more people will be 
able to afford health insurance. A lot of healthy young people say: 
Health insurance is expensive. I can use that money to do other things. 
I am probably not going to get sick.
  If we can bring down the cost of health care, a lot of the young 
people who are currently choosing not to enroll in a health plan can be 
brought into the health insurance market. What does this mean for the 
rest of us? It means that risk will be spread out among healthier 
people, which brings the cost of health insurance down for everyone 
else in the system. Health insurance is all about spreading out risk. 
What does that do? It makes health insurance even more affordable. It 
brings in more people who are healthier and younger into the health 
insurance market.
  Of those 40-plus million people who are identified as not having 
health insurance coverage today, a lot of them are young, healthy 
people. The more of these people we can get into the health care 
system, the more affordable health care is going to be for everyone 
else. It can have a magical spiraling effect that can make health care 
more accessible, more affordable, and more available to the citizens of 
the United States.
  Mr. President, this amendment is the right thing to do for America. 
If Members care about getting better quality health care to more people 
in the United States, vote for my amendment to expand health savings 
accounts today.
  How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remain.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Just on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Senator's side.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 13 seconds.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will take 13 seconds to say, 
unfortunately, evidence shows exactly the opposite of what my friend is 
saying. Any person who chooses on their own to buy insurance not 
through an HSA will not get the same benefit.
  If you have a child who is sick, if you are older, if you have health 
issues, this issue does not address, unfortunately, the issues my 
colleague has been talking about.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order the pending amendment 
violates section 505(a) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I move to waive all points of order that lie against the 
amendment, and 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 motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bond
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily laid aside and that Senator Kyl be recognized 
to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  I say to the Senator, do I understand there is a Member on his side 
who would like to give some brief remarks?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Arizona, 
there is always a Member on our side who would like to give some brief 
remarks. I ask, when might the Senator be ready to offer his amendment?
  Mr. KYL. We are ready to offer the amendment. I thought what I could 
do is get it pending, and then if someone wants to make some remarks.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be laid aside so Senator Kyl can offer his amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as soon as the staff brings it to me, I will 
send it to the desk.
  There is an amendment I sent to the desk earlier, and I will briefly 
describe it. It simply extends the provisions in the Finance Committee 
bill that provide tax assistance to small business in terms of 
expensing, depreciation, leasehold improvements, and so on, from the 
period of March 31 of next year through the end of next year. So it 
extends those provisions an additional 9 months. That legislation is 
pending at the desk.


                 Amendment No. 205 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. President, at this time, I send to the desk the legislation which 
adds to that the element that provides for the pay-for or the tax 
provisions that will ensure this is revenue neutral. So I send this 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 205 to amendment No. 100.

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

    (Purpose: To extend through December 31, 2008, the depreciation 
treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 4, line 21, strike ``April 1, 2008'' and insert 
     ``January 1, 2009''.
       On page 6, lines 5 and 6, strike ``April 1, 2008'' and 
     insert ``January 1, 2009''.
       On page 99, after line 19, add the following:

     SEC. ___. TERMINATION OF EXCLUSION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION 
                   REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 117(d) is amended by redesignating 
     the last paragraph as paragraph (4) and by adding after 
     paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.''.

[[Page S1153]]

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I can further describe the amendment, and we 
can discuss it, debate it, when the chairman is ready to do that or 
there is no one who intends to speak. I hope we can get this amendment 
voted on as soon as possible today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for the interest of moving this along the 
rest of the day, there are two Senators who wish to speak, and it is my 
hope after they speak we can get some other amendments up and start 
voting.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, 
Mr. Brown, be allowed to speak for 10 minutes, and following Senator 
Brown, that the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, be allowed to speak 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I grew up in Mansfield, OH, a small, blue-
collar city in the middle of America, a town of famous names--junior 
highs named after U.S. Secretary of State John Sherman and the 
legendary Johnny Appleseed; factories called Westinghouse and Tappan 
Stove and Fisher Body. Like many of our country's greatest cities and 
our Nation's most comfortable small towns, Mansfield has a Park Avenue 
and a Main Street, a Central Park and a town square, a Carnegie Library 
and a corner drugstore.
  In those days, people who worked hard, who paid their taxes, who 
played by the rules just about always had something to show for it. 
Almost everyone--virtually almost everyone--in my hometown believed 
that their children would enjoy a better life than they did. The more 
productive they were--insurance salesmen and factory worker, clerk and 
farmer--the better off they would be. The harder they worked, the more 
opportunity for their children. The middle class and all that it meant 
was much closer to them and for them than a distant aspiration.
  One-third of this body, 32 of my colleagues, came off the campaign 
trail victorious last November. Ten of us joined the Senate earlier 
this month. We are here for a reason. We are here because for too long 
Government betrayed the middle class.
  In recent years, Ohioans have watched the drug companies write the 
Medicare law, the oil industry dictate our Nation's energy policy, the 
insurance companies shape our health care. And perhaps worst of all, 
many of our largest corporations, untethered to any community, have 
forced through a willing and compliant Congress job-killing trade 
agreements which outsource our jobs, divide our families, and hurt our 
communities.
  We are here because Ohioans and people across our land understand the 
words of Pope John Paul II:

       We judge any economic system by what it does for and to 
     ordinary people and by how it permits all to participate in 
     it. The economy should serve the people, not the other way 
     around.

  We are here because we have heard from people who have worked hard 
and played by the rules all their lives, yet have so little to show for 
it. I met a man at the free clinic in Youngstown who had all but given 
up because of his diabetes. He came to the free clinic, his blue eyes 
tearing up, because his daughter insisted, he told me, that she simply 
wanted him to live. The number of free clinics in Ohio--a rich State in 
a rich country, a State known for some of the best medical facilities 
in the world--has doubled in the last decade. In rural Appalachia, the 
small community of Lottridge in Athens County is suffering from such 
staggering job loss that the local food bank now serves more than 200 
local families. And to maintain their sense of community pride and 
togetherness, the food bank workers put up curtains and decorations to 
resemble a general store, not a place of charity.
  A worker in Jackson, locked out of his factory because the company 
refused to negotiate with the union and now without health care, told 
me his doctor advised him he needed heart surgery. ``I take aspirin 
every day instead,'' he said, hoping his heart lasts longer than the 
lockout.
  A woman in Cincinnati suffering from hypertension, high blood 
pressure, and diabetes told me, with fear in her voice, that she was 
about to fall in the doughnut hole in the new Medicare prescription 
drug law. She needs help, but she was hiding it from her family. ``I'm 
so ashamed,'' she sobbed, as if it were her fault.
  Last fall, my wife Connie was waiting in line at the local drugstore 
in the affluent community of Shaker Heights. The woman in front of her 
was, for all intents and purposes, negotiating prices with the 
pharmacist to save money. ``What if I cut my pill in half and then take 
it twice a day,'' she asked. The very understanding pharmacist told her 
the doctor wants her to take her full medication twice a day. ``But 
isn't it better, since I can't afford this, to take half a pill twice a 
day than the whole pill just once?'' she asked. My wife asked the 
pharmacist: How often does this happen? ``Every day,'' the pharmacist 
shrugged, ``Every day, all day long.''
  At one time, our Government looked out for its people. I wear on my 
lapel a pin depicting a canary in a birdcage. A mine worker, 100 years 
ago, used to take a canary down in the mines. The mine worker had no 
government that cared enough to help him and no union strong enough to 
help him. He was on his own. In those days, a child born in this 
country had a life expectancy of about 46 or 47 years. Today we live 
three decades longer because of what this Government has done. People 
of faith, people in their union halls, advocates for children and for 
women and for the poor have pushed this Government to pass clean air 
and safe drinking water laws, to pass Medicare and Medicaid and 
workers' compensation and mine safety laws to protect the elderly and 
the disabled and women and children. Today it seems to be a different 
story.
  Will and Ariel Durant, who probably have documented a wider sweep of 
history than any writers of the 20th century, warned us:

       No society has survived without a middle class.

  Something is profoundly wrong with our economy. The CEO of a major 
retail company recently was awarded a $210 million severance package 
after the company's stock value dropped. Yet our Nation's working 
families, Ohio's middle-class families, often cannot afford to send 
their sons and daughters to school. The Nation's wealthiest 1 percent 
control as much wealth as 90 percent of the rest of us combined, yet 47 
million of us do not have health insurance. That class difference is a 
threat to our democratic system. A minimum wage worker earns less than 
$11,000 a year, yet some CEOs in our country make more than $11,000 an 
hour.
  Today we consider legislation to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to 
$7.25 an hour. In the last decade, our Government has failed to raise 
the minimum wage but given ourselves six pay increases. Those who plan 
to vote against the minimum wage in this Chamber, those who for 10 
years have blocked a minimum wage increase in the House of 
Representatives and in this body, are saying to the single mother 
working as a chambermaid in a Cleveland hotel, to a farm worker outside 
Toledo, to a janitor in Zanesville, those who plan to vote against the 
minimum wage are telling those minimum wage workers that they don't 
deserve a fraction of what we get, not even a fraction.
  There have been failures, to be sure, in this institution. And there 
have been great moments.
  Today, I am joined on the floor of the Senate by Senator Byrd of West 
Virginia. Three weeks ago, I stood next to him as I was sworn in for my 
first term and he was sworn in for his ninth term. More than 4 years 
ago, in October of 2002, Senator Byrd stood in this Chamber and spoke 
with prophetic wisdom about the pending war with Iraq. He instructed 
and taught millions of Americans, and he, with Senator Kennedy, 
inspired and emboldened many of us in the House of Representatives. I 
was a House Member then. More than 130 of us voted against that war. He 
warned us then that authorizing war in Iraq was ``both blind and 
improvident.''

  ``We are rushing into war,'' he said, ``without fully discussing why, 
without

[[Page S1154]]

thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt 
to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.''
  I thank the senior Senator from my neighboring State of West 
Virginia.
  The 110th Congress brings with it the breath of bipartisanship too 
long absent from our discourse. Democrats and Republicans alike are 
already working toward rebuilding our Nation's middle class. Earlier 
this week, I stood with Senator Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator 
Graham of South Carolina as we called for a new direction in our trade 
policy. I look forward to more of the same. Our Government needs to 
stand up for the middle class. We know why our constituents sent us 
here. We need to get to work. Raising the minimum wage is a very 
important first step.
  We must also work to create an alternative energy industry that not 
only fosters development of renewable fuels but also creates solid 
middle-class jobs and new businesses. We must invest in education at 
all levels. We must provide for our veterans. We must lower the cost of 
prescription drugs and make health care more affordable. And we must 
finally bring our troops home from Iraq.
  There is much work to do in this Congress. The people of this Nation 
have placed great trust in our ability to transcend partisanship. We 
cannot, we must not violate that trust.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we cannot, we must not violate that trust.
  This is my 49th year in the U.S. Senate. When I came here 49 years 
ago, there was no sound system in the Senate--none. And so when a 
Senator spoke, especially if he was giving his maiden speech, the word 
got around that a Senator was going to make his maiden speech. Senators 
came to the floor. The speeches, as I say, were not televised. There 
was no audio. A Senator spoke from his desk, and he spoke out. He spoke 
out. He spoke without an audio system. But other Senators would come 
up. They would come closer to the Senator who was speaking. They would 
gather around. I can remember when I made my maiden speech in the 
Senate. It was a long time ago.
  It has been my privilege today to sit at my desk here and listen to 
the distinguished Senator who comes from my neighboring State just 
across the great Ohio River. It has been my privilege to listen to him. 
He spoke well. Senators are at their offices, most of them. A lot of 
them heard this speech. They were not here to hear it, but I was here. 
I wish to commend the Senator on his maiden speech. It was a good 
speech. I like the way he spoke. I like the way he spoke from his 
heart. That speech will be in the Record for 1,000 years. I compliment 
the Senator. I am proud to be here in his audience today. I want him to 
continue to take the floor and speak his mind, speak for his people and 
to the people all across this country. I thank him for his speech. It 
was well done. The content was splendid. It meant much to him, and it 
meant much to me as I sat here. I thank him. May God continue to bless 
him in his work here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my friend from West Virginia in 
commending Mr. Brown, the Senator from Ohio, for his speech today.
  When I first arrived here--the Senator from West Virginia probably 
remembers--freshman Senators were rarely expected to speak. If you 
spoke within the first 2 years, people thought you were coming along a 
little more rapidly than others might expect. That tradition has long 
passed. We can understand why.
  Today in the Senate, working families and the middle class have a new 
champion. His name is Sherrod Brown, and he comes from Ohio. He has 
spoken eloquently and movingly and compellingly about the challenges 
facing citizens in the small towns and big cities of his State. He 
could be speaking for the middle class and working families in New 
Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Lawrence, Springfield or Worcester or 
other places around the State of Massachusetts.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. When he summons us to the great challenge in foreign 
policy, the war in Iraq, he speaks what is in the hearts, the souls, 
and the minds of all Americans.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. And the quicker we begin that debate and the quicker 
we begin to bring the change and alteration in policy, as he has spoken 
to on other occasions, the better it is going to be not only for those 
extraordinary, brave service men and women who have been fighting 
bravely and gallantly for over 4 years in Iraq, but we will begin to 
restore the prestige and influence of this country and the State he 
represents and loves. I thank the Senator for an excellent statement.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator 
from Vermont will be recognized for 10 minutes. Is the Senator from 
Missouri seeking time?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I am.
  Mr. GREGG. I would also like to be recognized, as would the Senator 
from Arizona. I believe the Senator from West Virginia still has time. 
I wonder if we can organize an order so we know when we are going to 
speak. The Senator from Vermont is going to speak----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont will speak for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
completion of the statement of the Senator from Vermont, I be 
recognized for 10 minutes, the Senator from Missouri for 10 minutes, 
and the Senator from Arizona be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask what the Senators are going to speak 
on.
  Mr. SANDERS. I have an amendment dealing with poverty in America.
  Mr. GREGG. I have an amendment dealing with employee option time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Arizona wants to speak on the amendment?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. And the Senator from Missouri?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I have been asked to speak on the President's health 
care plan today.
  Mr. BAUCUS. For how long?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Less than 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. So the understanding is that the Senator from Vermont 
will speak for 10 minutes, the Senator from New Hampshire for 10, the 
Senator from Missouri for less than 10, and then Mr. Kyl for 10 
minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the order of speakers be as just stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, we 
have a rule which provides that a Senator who wishes to speak should 
address the Presiding Officer and that the Senator first seeking to 
speak shall be recognized. We have rules around here.
  I don't much like this idea of having people stand in line to speak, 
and when some Senator comes to the floor and seeks recognition, he or 
she finds that somebody else already has consent to speak, and then 
someone else, and then someone else.
  I will not object at this moment to this batting order, this lineup 
of speakers. I think the rules provide that if a Senator wants to 
speak, he or she shall stand and ask for recognition. That is the way 
to do it. So I will not object to this lineup of speakers which puts at 
a disadvantage a Senator who has not been here to listen to this lineup 
and who wants to come to the floor and speak--comes to the floor and 
seeks recognition and finds that somebody else has already gotten 
unanimous consent to speak. Let's do it right. I will not object today, 
but let's not have this lining up of speakers. Let Senators come to the 
floor and seek recognition and get recognition. That is what the rules 
say. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will speak for just a minute. I very 
much appreciate the remarks of our very good friend from West Virginia. 
He is right. He is always right, especially on matters of procedure. It 
is my thought that we will have no more than four. In

[[Page S1155]]

honor of the Senator's points, I deeply appreciate that sentiment. We 
won't go beyond the four. In an attempt to try to move the bill 
forward, we are trying to get floor speakers and, hopefully, get the 
amendments up so that there is enough opportunity to offer their 
amendments and we can vote on the amendments. But the Senator's basic 
point is absolutely correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Senator Baucus, who is 
the chairman and who is managing this bill--am I correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. At this point.
  Mr. BYRD. He is a fine Senator. I take off my hat to him and thank 
him for what he has said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 201 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that it be in order for me to call up 
amendment No. 201, and once the amendment is reported by number, I be 
recognized under the order and, at the conclusion of my statement, the 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 201.

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

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning poverty)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING POVERTY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the United States has the highest rate of poverty and 
     the highest rate of childhood poverty among 17 major 
     countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development including Germany, France, Italy, the United 
     Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 
     Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and 
     Switzerland;
       (2) 36,950,000 Americans are living in poverty, an increase 
     of 5,400,000 since 2000;
       (3) 12,896,000 children in the United States under the age 
     of 18 lived in poverty in 2005, and the number of children 
     living in extreme poverty rose by 87,000 from 2004 through 
     2005;
       (4) in 2005, an estimated 33 percent of the homeless 
     population were children and an estimated 1,350,000 children 
     will experience homelessness in a year;
       (5) the number of uninsured Americans rose to 46,577,000 in 
     2005, 1,272,000 more than in the previous year, and the 
     number of Americans without health insurance has risen for 4 
     consecutive years;
       (6) the Department of Agriculture has found that, in 2005, 
     35,100,000 people lived in households experiencing food 
     insecurity, meaning that they did not have adequate access to 
     enough food to meet basic dietary needs to all times due to a 
     lack of financial resources;
       (7) households with children experience food insecurity at 
     more than double the rate for households without children;
       (8) The United States has the largest gap between the rich 
     and the poor of any major industrialized country;
       (9) the wealthiest 400 Americans saw their combined net 
     worth increase by $120,000,000,000 from 2004 to 2005;
       (10) the richest 400 Americans have a combined net worth of 
     $1,250,000,000,000 equaling the annual income of over 45 
     percent of the entire world's population or 2,500,000,000 
     people;
       (11) of the world's 793 billionaires, over 400 are 
     Americans;
       (12) in 1989, we only had 66 billionaires in this country; 
     and
       (13) on January 20, 2001, President Bush stated ``In the 
     quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent 
     poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. Where there is 
     suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not 
     strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. 
     And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless. And I can 
     pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded 
     traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the 
     other side.''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the United States has a moral obligation to improve the 
     lives of the 36,950,000 Americans living in poverty and the 
     15,928,000 of those who live in extreme poverty;
       (2) the United States has a moral obligation to reduce the 
     enormous gap between the rich and the poor; and
       (3) the President should immediately present to Congress a 
     comprehensive plan to eradicate child poverty and reduce the 
     gap between the rich and the poor by 2017.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating Senator 
Kennedy for his strong leadership on the need to raise the minimum 
wage--a minimum wage that has not been raised for 10 years.
  Let me also congratulate my colleague from Ohio, the current 
Presiding Officer, for his fine remarks, which I certainly concur with.
  The United States of America is the richest country in the history of 
the world. Unfortunately, despite our great wealth, nearly 13 percent 
of our citizens are living in poverty, and we have today the highest 
rate of childhood poverty of any major country in the industrialized 
world. In my opinion, we have a moral responsibility to end childhood 
poverty in America.
  Therefore, the amendment I am offering today simply expresses the 
sense of the Senate that, No. 1, we have a moral obligation to improve 
the lives of nearly 37 million Americans living in poverty, including 
nearly 13 million children; No. 2, we have to address the reality that 
in the United States today we have, by far, the most unfair 
distribution of wealth and income of any major industrialized country, 
and that we have a moral obligation to reduce that growing gap between 
the rich and the poor; No. 3, and most important, this amendment calls 
upon the President to submit a plan to Congress which eradicates 
childhood poverty over the next decade and reduces the growing gap 
between the rich and the poor.
  As a nation, we are often very proud of our accomplishments. How 
often do we hear people say, ``U.S.A., No. 1''? I share that sentiment. 
Certainly, in so many areas our country is leading and has led the rest 
of the world, and we are all very proud of that.
  Unfortunately, in terms of childhood poverty, within the 
industrialized world, we are also No. 1. We are No. 1 in having the 
highest rate of childhood poverty among any major country in the world, 
and that is not a No. 1 of which we should be proud.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the childhood poverty rate in 
the United States today is nearly 18 percent. According to data from 
the Luxembourg Income Study Group, the childhood poverty rate in the 
United States is even higher, almost 22 percent.
  Well, let's take a look at what childhood poverty rates are in other 
major countries, in many of the countries that we compete against 
economically. In Germany, the childhood poverty rate is 9 percent. In 
France, it is 7.9 percent. In Austria, it is 6.7 percent. In Sweden, it 
is 4.2 percent. In Norway, it is 3.4 percent. In Finland, the childhood 
poverty rate is only 2.8 percent--2.8 percent in Finland, over 18 
percent in the United States of America. There is something wrong with 
that equation.
  Have other countries succeeded when they put their minds to reducing 
childhood poverty rates? The answer is yes.
  In 1999, the British Government--our good friends in the United 
Kingdom--made a commitment to address childhood poverty. Six years 
later, child poverty in the United Kingdom had been cut by 20 percent. 
Similar progress, as I understand it, has been made in Ireland.
  Unfortunately, at the same time that Britain was taking important 
steps to reduce childhood poverty, in the United States childhood 
poverty increased by about 12 percent. The situation is bad, and we are 
moving in the wrong direction.
  When we hear our fellow Senators come to the floor and say the United 
States is the greatest country on Earth, I share that sentiment. But I 
do not share the sentiment that the greatest country on Earth should 
have, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the 
industrialized world, and that rate is growing higher and higher. We 
have to address that issue. We cannot sweep it under the carpet.
  While we continue to have the highest rate of childhood poverty, and 
while over 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty since 
George W. Bush has been President, there is another issue that this 
Senate has to address, and that is the growing oligarchic nature of our 
society. It is not talked about too much, but I think we should place 
it on the table.
  Today, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than the 
bottom 90 percent, and the CEOs of our largest corporations now earn 
over 800

[[Page S1156]]

times what a minimum wage worker earns. Today in America the wealthiest 
13,000 families who constitute one one-hundreeth of 1 percent of the 
population receive almost as much income as the bottom 20 million 
American families in the United States; one one-hundreth of 1 percent 
receive almost as much income as the bottom 20 million American 
families. That, in my view, is not what America is supposed to be.
  Mr. BYRD. Here here.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, working with the President of the United 
States, working in a bipartisan manner, we have to come up with ideas, 
place them on the table, and end the disgrace of having the highest 
rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Other countries 
are making progress; we can do the same.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, at the same time, we have to reverse this 
trend by which fewer and fewer people own more and more wealth, while 
more and more people have less; while poverty increases and while the 
middle class shrinks.
  The true greatness of a country does not lie in the number of 
millionaires and billionaires that it has; rather, a great nation is 
one in which justice, equality, and dignity prevail.
  I close with a quote that none other than President George W. Bush 
made on January 20, 2001. I quote from President Bush:

       In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, 
     persistent poverty is unworthy of our Nation's promise. Where 
     there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not 
     strangers, they are citizens, not problems, but priorities. 
     And all of us are diminished when any are hopeless. And I can 
     pledge our Nation to a goal: When we see that wounded 
     traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the 
     other side.

  George W. Bush.
  The President was right to make that pledge, but since he made that 
statement, we all know that over 5 million more Americans have slipped 
into poverty, including over 1 million children.
  Let us turn that pledge to reality. We can begin to do that by 
raising the minimum wage, and we can begin to do that by coming up with 
a plan, with a program, with legislation which eliminates childhood 
poverty in America and lowers the gap between the rich and the poor.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Amen. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized for 10 minutes.


                 Amendment No. 203 to Amendment No. 100

       (Purpose: To enable employees to use employee option time)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to this 
legislation which is extraordinarily relevant to the legislation. It is 
called the employee option time amendment. It basically gives people 
who work, especially working mothers, the opportunity to adjust their 
work schedule so they can do things they need to do for their family by 
allowing them to move the work schedule around so that if they have an 
issue where one of their children may have to go in the hospital or 
needs attention or a child has a soccer tournament or maybe there is a 
recital or maybe there is a family event they want to go to, a wedding, 
or they want to take a 3-day weekend to enjoy some event, such as a 
NASCAR race or something they need to get to, this amendment allows 
that working mother and that working family, or any worker for that 
matter, the opportunity to have that chance.
  In the past, it has been called flextime. We changed the title of it 
primarily because we changed the language to make it absolutely clear 
that this opportunity to move your work hours around is totally at the 
discretion of the employee, that the employer cannot force the employee 
to do this, the employer cannot require the employee to do this but, 
rather, the employee has the option of choosing to do this in a manner 
which they think is appropriate to their lifestyle.
  This is not a radical idea. It is not some conservative idea. It is 
just a basic idea of giving fairness and options to working people but 
people who are working a 40-hour week, especially to working single 
parents or parents generally.
  It is so unradical and so reasonable that Federal employees--Federal 
employees--have actually had this right to move their schedule around 
since 1978. But every time we have tried to give it to the rest of the 
folks who work in this country, it has been blocked. It has been 
blocked because some people felt it was inappropriate from a collective 
bargaining standpoint or they felt it would affect overtime or they 
felt the employee would be at a disadvantage relative to the employer.
  What we have done in this amendment is make it clear that none of 
those things could happen. This doesn't affect collective bargaining 
agreements. Overtime cannot be affected. If a person works more hours 
in a period, if a person exceeds the hours they are allowed to work 
without getting overtime, overtime must be paid.
  As I said earlier, the decision as to whether an employee pursues 
this course of action, of choosing to move their hours around, is left 
with the employee.
  The way it works technically is like this. This is the way it works 
at the Federal level with Federal employees, and this is the way it 
would work in this amendment when it is applied to the general 
population, especially people working 40-hour weeks.
  If you as a working mother, for example, know you have an event 
coming up for which you are going to need to take time off, for 
example, as I said earlier, such as your child has to go into the 
hospital for an operation--hopefully not, but if that is the case--or 
there is a big event in your family life, such as a recital or major 
athletic event, you want to know there are going to be 3 days you need 
for a wedding or for something that is significant, you can adjust your 
schedule so that one week you work up to 50 hours and in the next week 
you only have to work 30 hours or anything in between. You can work 45 
hours in one week and 35 hours in the following week, whatever works 
relative to your schedule and your time.
  One can see the advantage of this, especially for people who have 
families and so much going on in their life that they do need to have 
more flexibility in their capacity to structure their hours.
  Today they can't do that. Today an employee simply can't do that 
unless they are a Federal employee. If they are a Federal employee, 
they can do that.
  This amendment, which we have taken up before in a different form, 
accomplishes the goal of giving parents especially, but all working 
people who work a 40-hour week, more capacity to make that schedule fit 
their lifestyle rather than having an arbitrary 40-hour work week 
schedule.
  The changes, as I have mentioned, which we made in this amendment so 
that it addresses the concerns which have been expressed on this floor 
before when we brought forth this idea--and this idea received a 
majority at least once--are, as I mentioned, to make it very clear, 
voluntary.
  On page 2 of the amendment, it states no employee may be required to 
participate in such a plan.
  On page 3 (2)(ii) states that the program may be carried out only if 
the agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such 
employee and was not a condition of employment.

  On page 4, it states in subsection (b) that if such an employee has 
affirmed in writing, in a written statement that is made, kept, and 
preserved, that the employee has voluntarily chosen to participate in 
the program.
  There are significant penalties in this bill for an employer who 
violates that voluntary aspect of an employee making a choice to go 
forward. So we have addressed that concern.
  As I mentioned earlier, we make it very clear that in no way does 
this abrogate the obligation to pay overtime if somebody exceeds the 80 
hours in that 2-week period. So if you work 81 hours, you get overtime, 
just as you would if you were under the usual agreement of 40 hours a 
week.
  In addition, it makes it very clear this in no way abrogates any 
collective bargaining agreements. Most of the resistance of this 
amendment has come from the leadership of organized labor which, for 
some reason I don't understand, quite honestly, views this as some sort 
of a threat or potential threat to the collective bargaining

[[Page S1157]]

process. It is not. We make it clear it is not.
  This is simply an attempt to put all Americans on the same footing as 
all Federal employees by giving them flextime. We call it employee 
option time to make it absolutely clear it is the employee who has the 
choice.
  The amendment in the past was linked also--and this is another reason 
it was resisted--to something called comptime. Comptime is something 
more controversial, I admit to that. Comptime is not in this amendment. 
Comptime isn't going to be offered as an amendment, I don't believe.
  Rather, we are sticking purely with what has traditionally been known 
as flextime and what has been given to Federal employees for over 20 
years, almost 30 years.
  It is a very reasoned approach. When one thinks about it, yes, the 
minimum wage is going to help some people, but as a practical matter, 
this idea of giving people more capacity to manage their schedule is 
going to have a much greater impact on the quality of life of people 
than raising the minimum wage. Literally millions of people are going 
to have this authority and find it will increase their quality of life.
  Most of the people who will receive this new opportunity to adjust 
their schedule to fit what their family needs are not making minimum 
wage. They may be wage earners and they may be hourly paid, but they 
are certainly not making minimum wage. So this is going to benefit 
literally millions of people beyond the minimum wage earners, and it is 
especially, as I mentioned, going to benefit those people who have 
families, and especially benefit those people who are single parents 
trying to raise families and being in the workplace at the same time, 
which is one of the most difficult things anybody does in our country. 
This gives them more flexibility to manage their schedule so they can 
do things that are important to their families.
  It is a reasonable amendment. It is so reasonable, as I have 
mentioned, that the Federal employees have accepted it. It has been 
accepted by the Federal employees.
  I ask that the amendment be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself, 
     Mr. Enzi, Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Isakson, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 203 to amendment No. 100.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Alexander be added as cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the flexible time proposals we are debating 
today could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of 
working men, women and families in America. There are some fortunate 
Americans, including most State and Federal workers, who already have 
the right to flexible time scheduling. In fact, according to a national 
study, some 43 percent of all U.S. workers have this right, and they 
love to use it. Seventy-nine percent of the women who have to use it, 
and 68 percent of the men who have to use it, Study on the Changing 
Workforce, Families and Work Institute)
  But the majority of Americans do not have access to flexible time 
scheduling, and they deserve it, too. It could help the 67 percent of 
Americans who say they don't have enough time with their children and 
the 63 percent of Americans who say they don't have enough time with 
their spouses. At the very least, it would remove one of the barriers 
for achieving a work-life balance.
  So who are the people who are prohibited access to this type of 
benefit? Well, it isn't any Member of this Senate. Salaried employees 
are not penalized for flexible work arrangements. Employers don't have 
to increase pay for these employees if they work more in one week and 
less in another. It isn't government employees, either. Flexible work 
arrangements have been available in the Federal Government for almost 
three decades.
  In fact, this program has been so successful with government 
employees that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive order 
extending it to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet had 
the benefits of the program. President Clinton then stated, the ``Broad 
use of flexible arrangements to enable Federal employees to better 
balance their work and family responsibilities can increase employee 
effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and 
absenteeism.
  I couldn't agree more, but now we need to go further and extend this 
privilege to private sector workers. It is long past time to give 
employees the choice--the same choice as Federal workers. There is no 
reason that government employees need greater flexibility in meeting 
and balancing the demands of work and family than private sector 
employees.
  There are two proposals under consideration today. Senator Gregg has 
offered an employee option time amendment. This would give employees 
the option of ``flexing'' their schedules over a 2-week period. 
Basically, hourly employees who wish to could voluntarily have their 
work hours calculated on a biweekly rather than a weekly basis. This 
way a working mother could work 50 hours in one week and 30 hours in 
the next week, while her husband worked an opposite schedule and their 
children enjoyed an extra 10 hours a week with a parent. If such an 
arrangement were made and agreed to by both the employee and the 
employer, the employee would still be entitled to overtime for any 
hours beyond that agreement. For example, if an employee was asked to 
work 32 hours in a week that was scheduled to be a 30-hour week, the 
employee would be paid overtime for the additional 2 hours.
  I have to emphasize again, because I know my friends on the other 
side of the aisle don't always understand this, that the flexible time 
arrangement is entirely voluntary. In fact, the Gregg amendment 
requires written consent from the employee, and only employees with at 
least a year's tenure would be eligible. No employee could be pressured 
to enter into one of these agreements. Such coercion is specifically 
prohibited and punishable with monetary penalties.
  The second amendment which has been offered to this bill is a little 
different approach. Senator DeMint's amendment addresses the disparity 
between government and private employees that has existed since 1978. 
It essentially says government employees cannot exercise this benefit 
until private employees have the same right. I hope we will pass the 
Gregg amendment today and the DeMint will not be necessary. There is no 
reason this shouldn't be the case.
  There is a long history of support for flextime on both sides of the 
aisle. I hope my friends won't mind if I remind them of a little of 
this history. Although Democrats may now be attacking flextime 
proposals and calling it a ``wage cut'', some seem to be forgetting 
that flextime is not a new issue but one with a long, bipartisan 
history.
  In the early 1980s Senator Stevens led the effort to secure Federal 
worker access to compensatory time off and flextime. In 1985 former 
Senator Nickles shepherded a bill through the Senate that extended 
these positive benefits to State and local employees.
  These Senators did not foist an unpopular program onto unsuspecting 
workers over the objections of Democrats. Both of those laws passed the 
Senate with overwhelming, bipartisan support. Senator Kennedy voted to 
ensure that Federal employees would have access to flextime to have the 
scheduling options necessary to balance work and family life.
  Senator Kennedy, along with 11 other Democrats, cosponsored the 
Nickles bill to extend flextime and comp time to State and local 
employees. Flextime was not a pay cut for State and local workers when 
Senator Kennedy and other Democrats endorsed it in 1982 and 1985. And 
it is not a pay cut for private sector employees now.
  We are coming together--Republicans and Democrats--to raise the 
minimum wage in this bill, and to do it with fairness for the employers 
who will be subject to this mandate. Let us

[[Page S1158]]

also come together to give fairness to the employees who have been left 
out in the cold for 28 years. Let's give private employees the same 
right to arrange flexible work schedules as government employees. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment and, if it becomes 
necessary, the DeMint amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Missouri is recognized for 10 minutes.


                              Health Care

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to address a national 
crisis--health care. Over the past 6 years, the number of uninsured in 
this country has increased by 6 million people. Premiums have increased 
by 87 percent, compared to a 20-percent increase in wages. Our most 
vulnerable are being cut from the health care rolls. More and more are 
in fear that their existing coverage is inadequate and it would 
probably leave them bankrupt if, God forbid, someone in their family 
fell seriously ill or was injured. In other words, we are in pretty bad 
shape when it comes to health care in this country.
  Needless to say, I was pleased President Bush finally acknowledged 
our worsening health care crisis during his State of the Union Address 
on Tuesday. While I was pleased with the acknowledgment, I was sorely 
disappointed with the plan he laid out.
  In a nutshell, the President's plan would essentially further the tax 
burden on the middle class, hurt employees and the businesses of those 
who offer benefits, siphon funding from community-based health centers, 
and still leave 44 million Americans out in the cold when it comes to 
health care coverage.
  On Tuesday, he presented this plan to the country. Today he is 
visiting my State, the great State of Missouri, to peddle his program, 
attempting to sell it to the heartland.
  Although we will be a polite audience, the show-me State got its name 
for a reason. In Missouri, our Medicaid rolls were slashed as a result 
of budget decisions made on the State level, leaving nearly 100,000 
additional Missourians without any health care coverage. Also in 
Missouri, over 25,000 children have lost their health care because of 
cuts to our children's insurance program. In Missouri, we now have over 
600,000 citizens who have no health care coverage at all.
  Initially I had high hopes that the President might offer a plan that 
would help the millions of Americans just like these Missourians who do 
not have any health care. I was certainly looking for the President to 
show me something a little different on Tuesday. I had hoped he might 
look to the successful reforms occurring in other States, such as those 
in Massachusetts and Vermont that expand access to care through risk 
pooling or the optimistic proposals that have been presented in 
California and Pennsylvania, to enhance State programs by creating 
similar pooling mechanisms. These plans focus on ways to make health 
care more affordable for every participant and increase accessibility 
for those who are uninsured or underinsured, which is often just as 
risky. These plans utilize options such as insurance risk pooling so 
that large groups of people can use their numbers as leverage to bring 
down the rates for everyone and protect those with existing conditions. 
As many of us who have family members suffering from high blood 
pressure, asthma, or even migraines know, these individuals may make 
their health care plan more susceptible to higher premiums or denials 
for coverage altogether.
  Under the President's plan, folks can't work together for better 
rates or protect higher risk patients from denial. They are left to 
fend for themselves. Providers will take the low-risk participants, 
like skimming the cream off the top, and the rest are on their own as 
individuals in a very difficult insurance market.
  To make matters worse, if an individual currently has a high premium 
because of a family member's health condition, because they are older 
or because they have simply just opted for the most comprehensive 
coverage, the President's plan would only allow for a certain 
deduction, leaving them to foot the bill for a new tax increase. Let me 
say that again--a new tax increase that is not covered.
  Let me make this very simple and very clear. The President's plan for 
health care embraces a tax increase for 30 million Americans. He will 
raise taxes on 30 million Americans while only adding 3 million 
Americans to the health care rolls. This is not a good bargain for the 
American people. It does nothing for the working poor. This plan is 
based on the idea of income tax deductibility. Obviously, if you are 
working poor, your income tax deductions are not meaningful to you. You 
don't have mortgage deductions. You don't have other deductions. You 
don't have the kind of income for which those deductions are even 
helpful. So this plan will increase taxes on 30 million Americans and 
will do nothing for the working poor who are uninsured in such large 
numbers.
  We may know that the President wants to tax our health care for the 
first time, but he is masking that by telling the American people, like 
those in Missouri today, that he is offering a tax deduction. This tax 
deduction, of course, will end up favoring the most wealthy, while 
those at the bottom or the middle will not benefit as much. For 
example, a tax deduction of $15,000 as proposed in the President's plan 
would be worth over $5,000 for a family taxed at the higher bracket of 
35 percent, the high-income earners of America, but for those in the 
10-percent tax bracket, the poorer Americans, that deduction would only 
be worth $1,500.
  Furthermore, employers who offer comprehensive health care would be 
encouraged to shift the responsibility to their employees. Even for 
employers who offer an increase in wages to compensate for the change, 
the individual market plans are more likely to cost more, be less 
comprehensive, and provide a greater risk of high premiums or denial of 
coverage for those who have existing conditions.
  What may seem like a bargain today would not be a bargain in 10 
years. In fact, all you have to do is look at the numbers in the 
President's plan. It will cost our Treasury money in the beginning, but 
it is estimated that 10 years from now there will be no cost. All you 
have to do is look at that to realize that this is not a plan which 
over the long run will bring stability to our health care system, 
accessibility to our health care system, or bring down health care 
costs.
  As you can tell, I do not agree with forcing the middle class to 
shoulder another tax hike. With a minimum wage that has not increased 
in over a decade, these are the same people who are trying to afford to 
send their kids to college with ever-spiraling tuition costs, to fill 
their cars with gas and put food on the table. Wall Street might be 
seeing a boost in the economy, but these folks on Main Street have not 
seen it, and they need a break.
  That is where I come down on this plan. Instead of asking the middle 
class to bear another cost to their pocketbooks, we ought to look at 
those big tax breaks to America's most wealthy. Let's look at these 
different options. Let's use the President's plan as an opportunity to 
have a discussion about the severity of the problems in the system and 
what we need to do to make it better. Let's ask the tough questions and 
examine what is out there. Let's look at why is it that the United 
States spends 16 percent of our income on health care but other wealthy 
countries do not spend more than 11 percent; why is it that we spend 34 
percent of our health care dollars on administrative costs while other 
countries are only spending 19 percent; and why is it that American 
health insurance companies are insuring 4 percent fewer people in 
America between 2001 and 2005, yet they have added 32 percent more 
people to their payroll. Think about that for a minute. The health 
insurance companies are insuring 4 percent fewer people in their health 
insurance plans between 2001 and 2005, but in that same time they added 
32 percent more people to their payroll. What are these additional 
people doing if they are insuring fewer people? Could it be that they 
are hiring more people to help them figure out ways to avoid paying 
health insurance claims? Let's find out why an American automotive 
giant passes on $1,500 in health care costs per car, while the Japanese 
automaker Toyota only passes on $110.

  Bottom line: Families are hurt by health care costs. The vulnerable 
are at risk due to high health care costs, and businesses are 
struggling. Health

[[Page S1159]]

care in this country has turned into a giant game of pass the buck. I, 
for one, can say that I thank President Bush for bringing our worst 
domestic nightmare out of the dark. But as my predecessor liked to say, 
the buck needs to stop right here.
  I look forward to the many hours of debate we will need to have take 
place in order to get this right, and we cannot stop until we get 
there. The American people deserve this. In the meantime, I say to 
President Bush in Missouri, you need to show us more than this.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I direct a question to the chairman of the 
Finance Committee. Did he need to do some intervening business before I 
speak?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. I thank the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator Montana.


                 Amendment No. 206 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment, No. 
206.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 206.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should make 
permanent the tax incentives to make education more affordable and more 
accessible for American families and eliminate wasteful spending, such 
as spending on unnecessary tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the 
      cost of such incentives and avoid forcing taxpayers to pay 
           substantially more interest to foreign creditors)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING PERMANENT TAX 
                   INCENTIVES TO MAKE EDUCATION MORE AFFORDABLE 
                   AND MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should make 
     permanent the tax incentives to make education more 
     affordable and more accessible for American families and 
     eliminate wasteful spending, such as spending on unnecessary 
     tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the cost of such 
     incentives and avoid forcing taxpayers to pay substantially 
     more interest to foreign creditors.

                           Amendment No. 205

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. It is my understanding that under a previous order, I have 
10 minutes to speak. I will speak on the amendment that until just a 
moment ago was pending, amendment No. 205, which is my amendment to 
this minimum wage bill to extend provisions of the Finance Committee 
bill from March 31 of next year through the end of next year.
  The committee decided in its wisdom--and I note that it was a 
unanimous vote out of the committee, a bipartisan vote--that there were 
certain small business tax provisions that should be extended to help 
small business pay for the minimum wage increase we would be mandating 
by this bill. Most of the jobs are small business jobs that would be 
affected by the minimum wage. In fact, about 60 percent of those jobs 
are in the restaurant industry.
  As a result, the Finance Committee took several provisions of 
existing law and created a couple of new provisions that enable these 
small businesses to write off their leasehold improvements or their 
owner improvements either in a shorter period of time than they had 
been previously allowed under the code or, in the case of new 
improvements, a 15-year period which would be consistent for all these 
entities, whether they be restaurants or leasehold improvements or 
other new construction. This makes sense under the Tax Code since one 
needs to conform a new building that is built with leasehold 
improvements. If you are talking about a restaurant, for example, what 
you build in terms of new counters or new kitchen facilities is going 
to be the same for both. The writeoff period should be the same, a 
consistent 15-year period in this case. Certainly the Presiding Officer 
can appreciate the need to be able to make improvements to a restaurant 
kind of facility and be able to write those improvements off in a 
meaningful time under the Tax Code.
  This was not a matter of debate. The members of the Finance Committee 
agreed unanimously that this was good policy. But the policy was only 
extended through the end of March of next year. The reason was that the 
committee was committed to offsetting the cost--that is to say the loss 
of revenue to the Treasury--with some other way of raising revenue to 
equal that revenue which was lost. The so-called pay-for requirement, 
requiring members of the committee to find a way to pay for the tax 
loss, inhibited my amendment which would have extended these provisions 
for an additional 9 months through the end of the year.
  We now have found ways to pay for this additional extension and to 
simplify it. What my amendment does is to take these same provisions 
that are in the Finance Committee bill and extend them, not just 
through the end of March of next year but through the end of December 
next year. That obviously allows businesses to be able to plan better, 
and if they can plan better, they can help to add to their facilities, 
create new facilities, create new jobs. And, of course, what we ought 
to be doing to enable small businesses to pay a minimum wage increase 
is to be creating more business, more jobs earning more income so they 
can afford to pay this minimum wage.
  Another reason I offered the amendment was that there is an imbalance 
in the Finance Committee product. One provision out of the Finance 
Committee actually was extended for a period of 5 years. This is the 
work opportunity tax credit. This is mostly--in fact, one witness said 
about 95 percent of the value of this work opportunity tax credit is 
enjoyed by big businesses because they can afford to hire the lawyers 
and accountants to figure out how to comply with the provision. So this 
work opportunity tax credit--the value of that is mostly something that 
is enjoyed by the bigger businesses. That provision was extended 5 
years.
  All of these provisions to help the small businesses were only 
extended through March of next year. We believed that was very much out 
of balance. My amendment doesn't impact this 5-year extension of the 
work opportunity tax credit, but what it does do is at least it brings 
these other tax benefits up to the end of next year rather than just 
the end of March of next year. So we make it slightly more beneficial 
for small businesses and therefore somewhat improve their ability to 
pay for the minimum wage increase.
  I would argue that something like we have done here, that is, a 
temporary extension of a tax benefit, should not have to be ``paid 
for'' with a permanent change in tax policy. That makes no sense. But 
the chairman of the committee ruled my amendment would have been out of 
order without such a so-called pay-for, so I withdrew the amendment in 
committee and now have reoffered it with a pay-for. It is change in 
permanent tax policy.
  At this moment, my staff is meeting with the staff of the committee 
chairman and ranking member on the committee to see if there is some 
way we can agree to pay for this modest extension with tax policy on 
which we can all agree and not have to have a debate about. If we can 
do that, obviously that would be my preference, and perhaps we can have 
a vote that can be accommodated here very quickly. If staff is not able 
to agree on what that pay-for is and we have to go forward with the one 
I offered, we certainly want to do that. We want to have that vote as 
soon as possible this afternoon. I will briefly describe what it is. 
There may be some slight error in the way I describe it because I will, 
instead of reading it, explain it the way I understand it.
  Currently, the Tax Code would allow a discrimination between certain 
kinds of--different people receiving free tuition at a university, for 
example. If you work for a company and that company says: We will send 
your child to school free, we will pick up the tuition, you have to pay 
the tax on that benefit, it is a taxable benefit to you. Let's say the 
tuition cost is $10,000, and your company gives you the $10,000 to pay

[[Page S1160]]

for your child, though you have to pay the taxes on that. But if you 
are a university professor and your child wants to go to school, in 
many cases, the school waives the tuition for your child. Right now, 
you don't have to pay the tax on that. That is clearly discriminatory. 
The Joint Tax Committee has recommended in a report that deals with the 
so-called tax gap several provisions or loopholes that need to be 
closed. This is one of those so that the Tax Code would treat everybody 
the same. If you have tuition waived at a school, for example, it 
doesn't matter whether you are the principal of the school, a teacher, 
or you are an employee of another corporation that is paying for it; in 
any event, the tax treatment is the same: You would be taxed on that 
particular benefit. That is a fairer treatment than the current code. 
As I say, it was recommended by the Joint Tax Committee as part of this 
tax gap series of recommendations to enable the Internal Revenue 
Service to collect taxes fairly and try to ensure that when the code is 
administered, it treats all taxpayers the same.

  As I said, if there is a concern about that and the majority would 
like to work with us to try to find a different way to offset the cost 
of our modest provision, we would be delighted to work with them. I 
appreciate the willingness of the chairman of the committee to do 
exactly that.
  So if I could summarize, in my own words, all my amendment does is to 
take the provisions of the Finance Committee bill that passed out of 
the committee unanimously, that extends for small businesses certain 
tax benefits through the end of March of next year and extend those 
through the end of next year, December 31 of next year. That is the 
sole effect of the amendment. I think it is something we can all agree 
is good policy and would help to pay for the minimum wage increase we 
are imposing on the small businesses of our country.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the minimum wage 
increase would impose $4 billion in new costs on the private sector in 
2009 and $5.7 billion in 2010, with the increased costs extending at 
roughly $5 billion each year. Small businesses would incur the bulk of 
these costs, with restaurants subject to 60 percent of those costs.
  Therefore, it is responsible to combine the minimum wage increase 
with tax provisions that will help these small businesses weather the 
financial blow of the increase. That's why I am introducing my 
amendment to extend three tax incentives that are designed to encourage 
business investment and job creation in areas where the impact of the 
minimum wage increase will be felt most.
  There are three provisions. The first amends current law and is a 15-
year recovery period for leasehold improvements and restaurant 
renovations. The second, new provision, is a 15-year recovery period 
for new restaurant construction. The third, also new, is a 15-year 
recovery period for retail improvements
  The base bill extends current law by 3 months, through the first 
quarter of 2008. My amendment extends the time-period during which 
renovations to leaseholds or restaurants must be completed through the 
end of 2008 will enable more businesses to plan renovations that will 
help them improve and expand their business operations.
  Regarding my provision on restaurant construction, there is no policy 
justification for providing a 39-year depreciation recovery period for 
new construction, but giving renovations the 15-year treatment. The 
floor, walls, or restrooms installed in a new building are the same 
quality as full-scale renovations and will suffer the same wear and 
tear. Further, convenience stores--a direct competitor of quick service 
restaurants--are allowed to use a 15-year depreciation schedule for all 
construction this treatment is permanent law for convenience stores. 
Ideally, all of the accelerated depreciation provisions we are 
considering should be permanent too. By allowing restaurateurs to 
deduct the cost of renovations and new construction on a shorter 
schedule, many more restaurant owners will be in a position to grow 
their businesses and continue to create more jobs. By definition, 
encouraging more new restaurants to be built means more new restaurant 
jobs. This is important, because the restaurant industry is uniquely 
impacted by a minimum wage increase. Of the nearly 2 million workers 
earning the minimum wage, 60 percent work in the food service industry. 
Further, the last time Congress increased the minimum wage, 146,000 
jobs were cut from restaurant industry payrolls, according to the 
industry.
  Regarding the provision on retail improvements, The Small Business 
and work Opportunity Act of 2007 provides 15-year recovery period for 
improvements made to owner-occupied retail spaces, thus putting these 
establishments on the same footing as the leasehold improvements 
through the first quarter of 2008. The Kyl amendment would extend it 
through the end of 2008. Again, extending this treatment through 2008 
makes it more likely businesses can take advantage of the incentive.
  Some have asked questions about the offset for these provisions. 
Although I don't believe we need an offset, this one does the 
following: It eliminates the present--law exclusion from gross income 
and wages--meaning income and payroll taxes for qualified tuition 
reductions under section 117(d) of the Tax Code. The proposal would be 
effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
  I don't question whether a university or prep school wants to provide 
free tuition as an employment perk for a professor or chancellor. But 
it makes little sense that the rest of the taxpayers in this country 
have to subsidize that free tuition. Senators must clearly understand, 
if a small business wanted to give its employees' children free tuition 
at the local college, amounts over $5,000 would be a taxable benefit. 
And that is the right tax policy. To allow a college to provide the 
same benefit and have it competely tax-free is unfair. And again, this 
amendment does not eliminate the free tuition benefit.
  Finally, let me reiterate that if we are going to increase the 
minimum wage, it must be combined with responsible tax relief to ensure 
that we maintain our strong and growing economy. Mr. President, the 
scale of this tax relief does not represent what we should be passing 
today. This is a modest proposal, and I urge my colleagues to approve 
it.


                 Amendment No. 207 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside and that I be allowed to call up my 
amendment No. 207.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 207 to amendment No. 100.

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


                           Amendment No. 207

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should 
repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits and eliminate 
 wasteful spending, such as spending on unnecessary tax loopholes, in 
    order to fully offset the cost of such repeal and avoid forcing 
   taxpayers to pay substantially more interest to foreign creditors)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REPEAL OF 1993 INCOME 
                   TAX INCREASE ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should repeal 
     the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits and 
     eliminate wasteful spending, such as spending on unnecessary 
     tax loopholes, in order to fully offset the cost of such 
     repeal and avoid forcing taxpayers to pay substantially more 
     interest to foreign creditors.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
until 2:05 p.m. today be for the debate on the Baucus amendment No. 207 
and the Bunning amendment No. 119 and that the time run concurrently on 
both amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled between 
Senators Baucus and Bunning; that at 2:05 p.m., the Senate proceed to 
vote in relation to the Baucus amendment, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to the Bunning amendment; with 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided between the

[[Page S1161]]

votes; with no second-degree amendment in order to either amendment 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment No. 207 which was just reported. This is essentially a 
substitute amendment to the Bunning amendment No. 119.
  My amendment is quite simple. It says that Congress should repeal the 
1993 tax on Social Security benefits and eliminate wasteful spending 
such as spending on unnecessary tax loopholes--and I might say there 
are many of those--in order to fully offset the cost of such repeal. My 
alternative also explains that if we do not fully offset the cost of 
repeal, we will be paying substantially, among other things, more 
interest to foreign creditors because we will be not paying for it, 
essentially--and so increasing the deficit, essentially.
  This amendment of mine, the alternative, I think is the better 
amendment. Why? Because we have to be concerned about fiscal 
discipline. Unlike the underlying small business tax package reported 
out by the Finance Committee, the Bunning amendment is not paid for. 
Indeed, to repeal this provision now, as Senator Bunning proposes, 
would drain over $200 billion from the Treasury over the next 10 years.
  Furthermore, the Bunning amendment would eliminate a dedicated source 
of revenue for Medicare. As my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle know, we recently set up a trigger to warn us when 45 percent of 
Medicare funding comes from general revenues and, of course, the 
Bunning amendment would move us closer to that trigger point.
  The dedicated funding source that would be eliminated by the Bunning 
amendment helps pay for hospitals, nursing care, home care services for 
the elderly, all paid for by Medicare. I think a drastic reduction in 
that funding source, that is $200 billion worth, would impair the 
Federal Government's ability to pay for hospital and nursing home care 
under Medicare.
  Furthermore, a loss of revenue such as that in the Bunning amendment 
will make it even more difficult for us because it fails to address 
long-term solvency and, in fact, makes long-term solvency of Social 
Security more in peril, not less. Such a change as Senator Bunning 
proposes is not paid for and would do great harm to both Social 
Security and to Medicare.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to think carefully. There is an option 
to vote for the Baucus amendment and an option to vote on the Bunning 
amendment. The first vote would be on the Baucus amendment. The Baucus 
amendment is more in the nature of a sense of the Senate, and I think 
it is the better course because, clearly, if we are to reduce the taxes 
Senator Bunning proposes in his amendment, we have to do it 
thoughtfully and not in a way that is not paid for, in a way that 
threatens and imperils not only the deficit but also Medicare and 
Social Security.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague on the floor now, and I yield the 
floor so my colleague can speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 119

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we will be voting on two amendments 
shortly, both dealing with the 1993 tax placed on Social Security 
benefits. First, let me point out I am pleased the other side 
apparently agrees with me that these taxes need to be repealed. 
However, only one amendment which we will be voting on today actually 
does that, and that is my amendment.
  My amendment, the Bunning amendment, would actually repeal the unfair 
tax on senior citizens and provide relief. The amendment proposed by my 
good friend, Senator Baucus, would not actually do anything. It is 
simply a sense of the Senate.
  This issue is fairly simple. When the Social Security program was 
created, benefits were not taxed at all. However, since then, Congress 
twice has added taxes on these benefits for supposedly wealthy seniors. 
In 1993, a tax was placed on 85 percent of seniors' Social Security 
benefits if their income was above $34,000, if they were single, or 
$44,000 for a couple. Those are wealthy seniors. These numbers aren't 
indexed to inflation. So what has happened is more and more senior 
citizens are affected by them each year.
  My amendment is fairly simple. It repeals the tax starting in 2008. 
Seniors would not have to pay this additional tax. The amendment for 
the other side is the type of thing known in the real world as a cover-
your-backside amendment. It does not give America's senior citizens a 
tax cut. All it does is provide political cover. It is a sense of the 
Senate which says that Congress should repeal the 1993 tax. We all know 
that a sense of the Senate amendment doesn't really mean anything. It 
cannot be enacted into law. Congress never has to consider the issue 
again. But our seniors will still be paying this tax.
  My amendment actually repeals the 35-percent increase that was put on 
seniors in 1993. I think this issue is important enough to act on 
immediately. My amendment would do that. If my amendment were to become 
law, the seniors would see the tax decrease on January 1, 2008. It will 
happen instead of playing political games. The sense of the Senate 
amendment basically thumbs its nose at American seniors. If it passes, 
we are saying that although we agree the 1993 tax should be repealed, 
we aren't going to do anything about it. A vote for the Bunning 
amendment is a vote for a tax decrease on America's working seniors, on 
January 1, 2008; that is the date, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
  As for paying for the amendment, the amendment is paid for. It is 
paid for exactly like a lot of other things we pay for in this body: 
out of general fund dollars. We fund the Medicare Part A system 
generally out of general fund dollars. Our good friend from Montana has 
suggested there is a trigger mechanism, when we get close to a certain 
figure, on paying for Medicare Part A out of general fund dollars, and 
that is true. But the fact is, over a 10-year period, at about $20 
billion a year, our senior citizens will have relief from this 
unbelievable 35 percent increase on seniors that we put on them in 
1993. I think it is about time we stop fooling with it and actually do 
the job and repeal the tax of 1993. I would like to see that done 
today.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me take us back to 1993 because I had 
the opportunity, in 1993, to serve with Senator Bunning in the other 
body, and we were both on the Ways and Means Committee in which this 
legislation originally was considered.
  The tax on Social Security was increased for two reasons. It was done 
because we wanted to be fiscally responsible and have adequate revenues 
to pay our bills. But it was done for a second reason, and that is to 
shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds so there would be 
adequate money in the funds to pay for benefits. We wanted to be 
responsible. But there was another reason as well. There was another 
rationale as to why the tax was increased to that rate, and that is to 
make it more comparable to the tax treatment of private pensions, as to 
the amount of money the individual has already paid taxes on and that 
which the individual has not paid taxes on. So there was rationale for 
what was done in 1993. I wish to make sure that is clear in the record.
  But the reason I oppose my friend's amendment, Senator Bunning's 
amendment, is for three basic reasons. First, this amendment will add 
$200 billion more to our national debt if it were passed. It would 
increase our deficit by that amount of money, and all of us are 
interested in balancing the Federal budget and moving toward balancing 
it, not making the gap wider. We talk about fiscal responsibility, we 
talk about pay-go, we talk about other rules. Well, let's start with 
the amendments we are considering.
  The second reason is I think we have to be concerned about taking our 
general funds and putting them into the Medicare trust fund. I think 
that is an issue we should be very concerned about. For the sake of our 
Medicare system, Medicare Part A is financed

[[Page S1162]]

through our payroll tax and through the tax on the extra 35 percent. 
That is dedicated funding sources our seniors can depend upon to be 
there for their Medicare system. The Bunning amendment takes some of 
that money out and says: We will use our general funds to pay for it. I 
say to my colleagues, seniors are going to be a lot safer by knowing we 
have a dedicated revenue source that goes into Medicare rather than 
relying on the transfer of funds into the Medicare system.
  So for the sake of our seniors and the Medicare system and for fiscal 
responsibility, we should defeat the Bunning amendment. All of us want 
to provide sensible tax policies for our constituents, but let's do it 
in an orderly way.
  This is interesting: I didn't think I would ever say this, but in the 
Constitution, tax bills are supposed to originate in the other body, 
and we are not following that order today by considering a tax issue on 
the minimum wage bill. We would have been better off to keep this bill 
limited to the minimum wage and consider tax issues when we 
legitimately have that issue before this body.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Bunning amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUNNING. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. BUNNING. First of all, as my good colleague with whom I spent 12 
years, 8 of which were spent on the Ways and Means Committee--as my 
colleague knows, the House always has the opportunity to blue-slip the 
bill if they do not like it because it has tax provisions added that 
originated in the Senate. They have a chance to blue-slip if they don't 
like the provisions. So we will send it to the House and see what they 
do with it. So that argument is not sound basically.
  If we want to balance the Federal budget, I suggest we not do it on 
the backs of our senior citizens. That is what my good colleague from 
Maryland is asking Members to do. I am asking that our seniors, our 
most vulnerable people in society, those who are so wealthy at $33,000 
worth of income, who have to pay and get their Medicare furnished to 
them by the Federal Government, I ask that they not be asked to burden 
another 35 percent increase, which they have been asked to do since 
1993. I don't think it is fair to ask our senior citizens to carry that 
burden when the younger Americans, who pay the bulk of our taxes, are 
those who should be asked to pay the burden.
  One thing I want to make sure Members understand when they vote on 
this amendment is, never in the history of this tax has one penny of it 
ever gone into the Social Security system--not one penny--since 1993. 
It has all been dedicated to Medicare Part A. It has only been 
dedicated to Medicare Part A because it was sinking. Then we raised the 
cap to allow uncapped provisions to fund Medicare Part A since 1993. So 
where we capped Social Security benefits at a certain level, Medicare 
Part A and Medicare taxes have been uncapped. If you make $5 million a 
year, you pay a portion of that in a tax to the Medicare system.
  Let's be honest. My amendment is the only real amendment that repeals 
the 1993 tax on the Social Security benefits that senior citizens 
receive each month, at the end of the month or the first of the month. 
This is the only time we will get a chance to vote on this issue. Maybe 
we will get another tax bill before the Senate this year. I guarantee 
if this goes down, we will revisit this again in a later bill; it is 
that important.
  Our seniors are struggling to pay their bills, as is everyone else in 
America. A tax reduction for them, 35 percent on their Social Security 
benefits--if they saved any money, we are going to penalize them if 
they have saved a little bit for retirement. That makes no sense at all 
when we encourage savings every day. Now we are going to penalize them 
with their Social Security benefits because they have an income of 
$34,000 or $44,000?
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 207

  Mr. ENZI. 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 Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     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
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bond
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Stevens
     Thomas
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 119

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I inquire, what is the regular 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes of debate equally divided on the 
Bunning amendment.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Well, Mr. President, we just passed a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment that does nothing to reduce the tax on our senior 
citizens. Our good friends always say they want to only tax 
millionaires, but it always ends up the same way, with higher taxes on 
millions--millions of workers, millions of families, millions of small 
businesspeople, and now, here again, millions of our senior citizens.
  If you actually want to reduce the tax, you must vote for the Bunning 
amendment because that is the only amendment that actually removes the 
35-percent increase we put on our senior citizens in 1993. So I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the Bunning amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose the Bunning amendment. It is a 
perfect example of why we do things in committee; namely, here we are 
on the Senate floor. This is an amendment that raises the budget 
deficit by $200 billion. It has never been discussed. We haven't taken 
it up in the Finance Committee. That is not a good way to legislate.
  Second, it has the adverse consequence of increasing the deficit by 
$200 billion. That is not a good thing to do, with all the 
ramifications that an increase of $200 billion in the deficit will 
have. I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Remember, the way to work legislation, generally, is through 
committees, as much as we possibly can. That way we will get a better 
product. My goal in the Finance Committee is to work as a committee. If 
we work as a committee, we are more likely to get better legislation 
rather than ad hoc legislation out here on the floor of the Senate.

[[Page S1163]]

  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution 
on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions 
of the Budget Act and 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 motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bond
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, quickly, for the benefit of my fellow 
Senators, we are trying to get as much done as possible. I appreciate 
the cooperation we have had. Usually the problem managers have is 
getting people to offer amendments. We have many amendments that have 
been offered. We need to get votes on them. Some are: Senator Smith's 
on education tax incentives, which I think we will have in a moment; 
Vitter's on paperwork violations; Kyl's on extended depreciation 
provisions; Sessions' on Federal contract torts; Burr's on more 
flextime; DeMint's on involuntary donation collections, and an 
amendment regarding American Samoa. A lot of them are ready to go. If 
we lock in limited debate time and get votes, it will be helpful. I 
hope we move forward on that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate. I am 
curious and somewhat disappointed that we have not been able to move to 
a conclusion. This is, after all, a vote on the minimum wage. It has 
been nearly 10 long years since the minimum wage has been increased, 
and my hope is that we have a number of amendments, debate, and be able 
to move this legislation forward. It now seems obvious to me this is 
not a priority for some.
  In 1916, a man named James Fyler died of lead poisoning. That is a 
different way of saying he was shot 54 times. He was shot 54 times 
because he believed people who went underground in this country to mine 
for coal should be paid a fair wage and work in a safe workplace. He 
lost his life for that. We fought for a century for the rights of 
workers in this country--for the right to organize, to work in a safe 
workplace, for child labor laws--a whole series of things that have 
made life better for workers. Some are at the bottom rung of the 
economic ladder.
  Some in this Chamber have said those are just teenagers. That is not 
true. Some teenagers certainly do work at the minimum wage. But well 
over 70 percent of those working at minimum wage are adults; 60 percent 
of them are women, and for one-third of them, it is the sole income for 
their families. Many are working two and three jobs trying to make ends 
meet. They make the beds in the hotels and motels. They work at the 
counter of the convenience store when you stop to get gas, or get some 
candy or something at the convenience store. They are the people we see 
every day. They are working at the minimum wage that has been the same 
for 10 long years.
  I said this morning that it is puzzling to me how quickly and easily 
legislation moves through this Chamber when it supports the big 
interests. If it is a $104 billion benefit to allow big companies to 
repatriate income they have made abroad by, in many cases, moving their 
jobs abroad and being able to bring their income back and pay a 5\1/4\ 
percent income rate--yes, this Congress did that. We said bring that 
income back and you get to pay a 5\1/4\ percent income tax rate. How 
many Americans would like to pay 5\1/4\ percent on their income taxes? 
Nobody gets to do that. Some of the biggest enterprises in this 
country--names everybody would recognize--were told by this Congress a 
couple years ago that you can bring all that money back and pay 5\1/4\ 
percent income taxes. Yes, you moved your jobs overseas and decided to 
get rid of your American workers, close your American plants, and hire 
foreign workers; but when you bring your income back, we will tax you 
at just 5\1/4\ percent.
  What a deal, bargain basement tax rates. That went through the 
Congress like greased lightning. Do you think anybody was blocking 
that? Well, Fritz Hollings, who used to sit back here, was trying to, 
and I was. The fact is it moved through here as quick as anything you 
have ever seen because it represented the big interests. Now all of a 
sudden people who work at the minimum wage have their issue on the 
floor of the Senate. Is the hallway clogged with people demanding a 
vote on the minimum wage out there? Is anybody in the hallway in the 
front of this building representing people who work on the minimum 
wage? No, I am afraid not. Is this Congress moving as quickly on behalf 
of the little guy as it is for the big guy? I am afraid that is not the 
case.
  I mentioned this morning the lyrics in Bob Wills' and the Texas 
Playboys' song some 70 years ago. It plays out all the time, yes, here 
in the Chamber of the Senate: ``The little guy picks the cotton and the 
big guy gets the money; the little bee sucks the blossom and the big 
bee gets the honey.''
  One wonders whether on this issue, as simple as it is, if maybe we 
can get to a vote, for Members of the Senate to stand up and answer the 
question: Whose side are you on? Maybe we can get enough to stand up to 
say I am on the side of the people who are working for a living, 
working hard, working two and three jobs at minimum wage, without an 
adjustment to that minimum wage in nearly 10 years, during which time 
the value of the purchasing power of that minimum wage has dramatically 
eroded. One wonders whether we can get a majority of the Senate, or 60 
Senators, to stand up and say let's do this. It could not be done that 
way, so it was brought to the floor with tax breaks for business.

  Look, I am a big supporter of big business. They represent an engine 
of opportunity for this country and create jobs. I support businesses. 
Almost all of the things in this bill, such as expensing--I have been 
involved, as have other colleagues, in trying to provide more expensing 
opportunities for businesses. I have voted for that many times, and 
will again. But it doesn't belong on this bill. As a price, apparently, 
for bringing this bill to the floor, it has to have tax breaks for 
businesses. Even with that, we cannot get it passed; even with that, we 
are sitting here day after day waiting to see whether the Senate will 
decide to increase the minimum wage for those

[[Page S1164]]

folks working at the bottom of the economic ladder.
  Well, Mr. President, it is an interesting thing to watch--this 
process of legislating. Everybody talks about watching sausage being 
made and watching legislative processes in work, and I understand it is 
difficult, not easy. I understand these issues are, in many cases, 
controversial. But this ought to be the first baby step in the 
direction of fairness for these workers. We, after all, live in a time 
now of what is called the ``global economy,'' where there is downward 
pressure on income for American workers.
  Former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Blinder said, 
with respect to the pressure on American workers, that there are 42 
million to 56 million American jobs that are tradeable and, therefore, 
outsourceable. We have lost 3 million jobs to overseas factories, where 
you can hire somebody for 33 cents an hour, and he said there are 42 
million to 56 million more. This is not somebody who is radical. This 
is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He said not all 
of those jobs will leave our country, but those that remain will have 
downward pressure on income because they are competing with people in 
China, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, who work for 30 cents or 40 cents an 
hour.
  There are 250 million workers who are kids age 5 to 14. Our workers 
are told to compete with that. You cannot. There is downward pressure 
on income of people in this country.
  This bill deals with one part of that--the workers at the bottom of 
the economic ladder, those who get up in the morning and are trying to 
get their kids ready for school, and trying to figure out how to put 
gas in the tank of the car to drive to work; and they work 8 hours and 
they earn a little over $40. I said this morning, what about a maximum 
wage? We have trouble getting a minimum wage through the Congress. 
George Will, that columnist who writes in the Washington Post, says the 
minimum wage ought to be zero. Of course, it never would affect him, so 
it is easy for him to write that it ought to be zero. He would like to 
take us back, I assume, just as we had great debate when the Fair Labor 
Standards Act was created and people said that is socialism, but it was 
standing up for workers, requiring employers to keep track of hours of 
work, overtime, and provide basic protections for workers. So some 
people think the minimum wage ought to be zero.
  Well, what about a maximum wage? I am not suggesting there ought to 
be a maximum wage, but has anybody come to the floor to express outrage 
when you read that the CEO leaving Exxon Corporation was making 
$150,000 a day? Yes, that is right--a wage or income of a CEO of a 
corporation was $150,000 a day. Think of that. Did anybody come and 
complain about that? No, we just have columnists and colleagues 
complaining about somebody who might earn a few bucks an hour. Sixty 
percent of them are women, as I said, with children; 6 million children 
live in families supported by the minimum wage. So the question, I 
guess, that I ask at the moment is not whether we support small 
business--I certainly do, and I will in the rest of this Congress 
support the kinds of things that will be helpful to small businesses, 
which are engines of growth and opportunity. That is not the question. 
The question is, are we going to increase the minimum wage at this 
point? It appears there is this unbelievable snail's pace in the 
Senate. Glaciers move faster than this Chamber sometimes. Nobody ever 
accused the Senate of speeding, but this is something quite different. 
I am hoping that very soon--I know the folks who have been managing 
this bill join this hope--we can decide we have had enough amendments 
about things that have nothing to do with anything about the workers at 
the bottom of the ladder. And maybe we can get a vote to say as a 
Chamber, as the House has done without extraneous matters attached to 
it, that we stand for workers who have been working at the bottom of 
the economic ladder and have not had an adjustment in 10 years; that we 
stand for them and believe it is important to have this adjustment. We 
believe it will be good for our country. I hope that happens sooner 
rather than later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 113

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to amendment No. 113.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is pending.


                 Amendment No. 204 to Amendment No. 113

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, Senator 
Smith, and myself, I call up a second-degree amendment, amendment No. 
204, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself and Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 204 to amendment No. 
     113.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 permanently 
extend and increase the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom 
supplies and to expand such deduction to include qualified professional 
                         development expenses)

       On page 2 of the amendment, strike lines 1 through 7, and 
     insert the following:
       (b) Expansion of Above-the-Line Deduction for Certain 
     Expenses of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (D) of section 62(a)(2) 
     (relating to certain trade and business deductions of 
     employees) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) Certain expenses of elementary and secondary school 
     teachers.--The deductions allowed by section 162 which 
     consist of expenses, not in excess of $400, paid or incurred 
     by an eligible educator--
       ``(i) by reason of the participation of the educator in 
     professional development courses related to the curriculum 
     and academic subjects in which the educator provides 
     instruction or to the students for which the educator 
     provides instruction, and
       ``(ii) in connection with books, supplies (other than 
     nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in health or 
     physical education), computer equipment (including related 
     software and services) and other equipment, and supplementary 
     materials used by the eligible educator in the classroom.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the second-degree amendment that Senators 
Warner, Smith, and I are offering increases a deduction for 
schoolteachers and other educators that is in current law. Our 
amendment would increase this deduction to $400 and make it permanent. 
This tax deduction is available to schoolteachers and other educators 
who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to purchase classroom 
supplies for their students. It would also allow this above-the-line 
tax deduction for expenses related to professional development.
  This amendment builds on a $250 tax deduction in current law that 
Senator Warner and I authored in 2001. It became law that year as part 
of the tax relief package. The tax relief provided by that act to 
schoolteachers and other educators was later extended through the end 
of this year, but we need to act to extend it further, and I suggest 
there is no reason we shouldn't just go ahead and make it permanent. 
Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational 
experience for their students deserve more than just our gratitude. 
They deserve this modest tax incentive to thank them for their hard 
work.
  So often, teachers in my State and throughout the country spend their 
own money to improve the classroom experience of their students. Many 
of us are familiar with the survey of the National Education 
Association that found that teachers spend on average $443 a year on 
classroom supplies. Other surveys show they are spending even more than 
that. In fact, the National School Supply and Equipment Association has 
found that educators spend an average of $826 to supplement classroom 
supplies, plus $926 for instructional materials on top of that--in 
other words, a total of $1,700 out of their own pockets.
  In most States, including mine, teachers are very modestly paid for 
their jobs, and I think it is so impressive that despite challenging 
jobs and modest salaries, teachers are willing to dig deep into their 
own pockets to enrich the classroom experience because they care so 
deeply for their students.

[[Page S1165]]

Indeed, I have spoken with dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me they 
routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in 
current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine. 
In fact, I have visited more than 160 schools in my State. At virtually 
every school I visit, I find teachers who are spending their own money 
to benefit their students. Year after year, these teachers spend 
hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, 
construction paper, stamps, ink pads--everything one can think of. Let 
me just give a couple of examples. For example, Anita Hopkins and Kathi 
Toothaker, who are elementary school teachers in Augusta, ME, purchased 
books for their students to have a classroom library, as well as 
workbooks and sight cards. They also purchased special prizes for 
positive reinforcement for their students. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that 
she spends between $800 and $1,000 of her own money on extra materials 
to make learning more fun and to create a stimulating classroom 
environment.
  I have proposed that we also expand the uses for this tax deduction. 
We should make it available for teachers who incur expenses for 
professional development. We hear a lot of discussion when the 
provisions of No Child Left Behind are debated about the need for 
highly qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve 
their qualifications is through professional development. Yet in towns 
in my State--and I suspect throughout the country--school budgets are 
often very tight and money for professional development is either very 
small or nonexistent. So what I think we should do is to allow this tax 
deduction to also apply when a teacher takes a course or attends a 
workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket.
  In my view, it is the students who are the ultimate beneficiaries 
when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills 
or to teach them a new approach to presenting material to their 
students. Studies consistently have shown that other than involved 
parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the 
presence of a well-qualified teacher, and educators themselves 
understand just how important professional development is to their 
ability to make a positive impact in the classroom.
  The teacher tax relief we have made available since 2001 is certainly 
a positive step, and I was very proud, along with Senator Warner, to 
have authored that law. This amendment would increase that deduction 
from $250 to $400, reflecting more accurately what teachers really do 
spend, and it would also make it permanent.
  The National Education Association, the NEA, has endorsed this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the NEA's letter be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this amendment is a small but 
appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices our teachers make 
every day to benefit the children of America.
  I thank the Senator from Oregon for working with me on this 
amendment. It is my understanding that it is acceptable to him. It 
builds on the many positive provisions he has in his amendment. He is a 
cosponsor of the amendment. He has been a real leader on educational 
issues.
  Shortly, I am going to ask that the amendment be adopted.

                               Exhibit 1


                               National Education Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 2007.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     Senator John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Warner: On behalf of the National 
     Education Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we would 
     like to express our strong support for your legislation that 
     would increase, expand, and make permanent the tax deduction 
     for educators' out-of-pocket classroom supply expenses. We 
     thank you for your continued leadership and advocacy on this 
     important issue.
       As you know, the educator tax deduction helps recognize the 
     financial sacrifices made by teachers and paraprofessionals, 
     who often reach into their own pockets to purchase classroom 
     supplies such as books, pencils, paper, and art supplies. 
     Studies show that teachers are spending more of their own 
     funds each year to supply their classrooms, including 
     purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, scissors, 
     and facial tissues. For example, NEA's 2003 report Status of 
     the American Public School Teacher, 2000-2001 found that 
     teachers spent an average of $443 a year on classroom 
     supplies. More recently, the National School Supply and 
     Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators 
     spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for 
     supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials, 
     for a total of $1,752.
       By increasing the current deduction and making it 
     permanent, your legislation will make a real difference for 
     many educators, who often must sacrifice other personal needs 
     in order to pay for classroom supplies.
       NEA also strongly supports your proposal to extend the tax 
     deduction to cover out-of-pocket professional development 
     expenses. Teacher quality is the single most critical factor 
     in maximizing student achievement. Ongoing professional 
     development is essential to ensure that educators stay up-to-
     date on the skills and knowledge necessary to prepare 
     students for the challenges of the 21st century. Your bill 
     will make a critical difference in helping educators access 
     quality training.
       We thank you again for your work on this important 
     legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you 
     to support our nation's educators.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations.
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of 
America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing an 
amendment regarding the Teacher Tax Relief Act.
  Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in 
support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in 
recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of 
their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in 
providing much needed tax relief for our Nations teachers with passage 
of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.
  This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, 
included the Collins/Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions 
that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur 
out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to 
better the education of their students. These important provisions 
provided almost half a billion dollars worth of tax relief to teachers 
all across America in 2002 and 2003.
  In the 108th Congress, we were able to successfully extend the 
provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. In the 
109th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions for 
2006 and 2007.
  While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's 
teachers, our work is not yet complete.
  It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $826 out of their 
own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, 
pencils and books. First-year teachers spend even more.
  Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate 
to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket 
to better the education of America's youth.
  Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom 
supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket 
on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, 
books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers 
become even better instructors.
  The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial 
burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving 
the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a 
teacher shortage.
  Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step 
forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by 
providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses.
  However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than 
$250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our 
children. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to 
take another step forward by introducing this amendment.
  This amendment will build upon current law in three ways. The 
amendment will:

[[Page S1166]]

  (1) Increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has 
called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400;
  (2) Allow educators to include professional development costs within 
that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but 
only for classroom expenses; and
  (3) Make the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. 
Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2007.
  I will ask to have printed in the Record at the end of my statement a 
letter from the National Education Association endorsing the Collins-
Warner amendment, and also a letter from the Virginia Education 
Association endorsing the Collins-Warner amendment.
  Mr. President, our teachers have made a personal commitment to 
educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, 
the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our 
teachers make in their career.
  This teacher tax relief amendment is another step forward in 
providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned 
materials be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Education Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 2007.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 3.2 million members, we urge your support 
     for an amendment to be offered by Senators Collins (R-ME) and 
     Warner (R-VA) to the minimum wage bill that would make 
     permanent the tax deduction for educators' out-of-pocket 
     classroom supply expenses. Votes associated with this issue 
     may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 
     110th Congress.
       The educator tax deduction helps recognize the financial 
     sacrifices made by teachers and paraprofessionals, who often 
     reach into their own pockets to purchase classroom supplies. 
     Studies show that teachers are spending more of their own 
     funds each year to supply their classrooms, including 
     purchasing essential items such as pencils, glue, scissors, 
     and facial tissues. For example, the National School Supply 
     and Equipment Association found that in 2005-2006, educators 
     spent out of their own pockets an average of $826.00 for 
     supplies and an additional $926 for instructional materials, 
     for a total of $1,752.
       The current deduction was extended at the end of 2006, but 
     will expire again at the end of this year absent additional 
     congressional action. Making the deduction permanent will 
     acknowledge the sacrifices made by those who have dedicated 
     their lives to educating our children and will alleviate the 
     uncertainty they face as they wait each year to see if the 
     deduction will be extended.
       We urge your support for this important amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Diane Shust,
       Director of Government Relations;
     Randall Moody,
       Manager of Federal Policy and Politics.
                                  ____



                               Virginia Education Association,

                             Richmond, Virginia, January 25, 2007.
     Hon. John William Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of the Virginia Education 
     Association's (VEA) 62,000 members. I thank you for offering 
     an amendment to the minimum wage bill that would make 
     permanent the tax deduction for educators' out-of-pocket 
     classroom supply expenses.
       In Virginia we are fighting to improve the salaries of 
     teachers and other education support professionals to bring 
     them to the national average, so it iswonderfuI that you 
     recognize the financial sacrifices they make when purchasing 
     classroom supplies such as pencils, glue, scissors, and 
     facial tissues. The National School Supply and Equipment 
     Association found that in 2005-2006, educators spent out of 
     their own pockets an average of $826.00 for supplies and an 
     additional $926 for instructional materials, for a total of 
     $1,752.
       Your amendment acknowledges these sacrifices made by those 
     who have dedicated their lives to educating our children.
           Sincerely,

                                                Princess Moss,

                                                        President,
                                   Virginia Education Association.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I thank Senator Collins. Her amendment is 
important. She has been working on this issue since 2001. It does have 
a very real impact. I certainly support her adding it to my amendment. 
It is an important contribution to education, specifically to those who 
are educators.
  I will make a few remarks, but I do wish to point out that my friend 
from North Dakota was talking about the repatriation bill that he said 
was not for little folks, I suppose, or however he termed it. That bill 
that was passed, by my last count, has resulted in repatriations of 
$290 billion. These dollars have benefitted our economy and created new 
jobs.
  One of the reasons we have such low unemployment in this country 
today is because of that bill. It affects regular folks, working folks, 
and, yes, it does involve multinational companies, but these are 
American companies which do business all over the world. Some of them 
are in my State, like Nike. Some may even be from North Dakota.
  What we do relative to the Tax Code has real consequences. People 
respond to incentives. What that bill represents is truly $290 billion 
can either come back into our economy or it is $290 billion that will 
never come back into this economy. I am proud of that legislation 
because it has helped working people.
  If the Senator wanted something that will help those--let's term it 
``those of average income''--those working Americans who would like a 
break under the Tax Code, we did that in the Bush tax cuts, and I am 
trying today, with this amendment, with Senator Collins' help, to 
extend these tax cuts as they relate to education. It is hard to see 
how anybody could be against it, and I don't suppose there are many in 
this Chamber who truly are. Some will question the timing of bringing 
it up now but, frankly, I have learned in 10 years around this place 
that if you want something to move, you better hook it on to any train 
that is moving.
  Yes, I want to vote to raise the minimum wage, but I also want to put 
on provisions to help the folks we are trying to help, without hurting 
small employers, but people who are on minimum wage, particularly moms 
and dads who are trying to save for education.
  There are three provisions, in addition to the fourth Senator Collins 
added to this bill, that I want to highlight. First is the deduction 
for qualified tuition and related expenses.
  Americans can currently deduct up to $4,000 for higher education 
expenses, depending on their income level. In 2004, over 4.5 million 
American students and families benefited from this deduction, including 
almost 65,000 Oregonians, of which I am proud. I am glad we cut this 
tax. I am glad this deduction is in there. But it is about to expire. 
So the sooner we extend it, make it permanent, as this amendment 
proposes to do, the better off American families will be for planning. 
We are not talking about the rich here; we are talking about folks who 
are trying to make education more affordable, more accessible, and 
these are the tools of the Tax Code that enable us to do it.
  The second provision addresses the exclusion for employer-provided 
educational assistance. This tax benefit allows employees to exclude 
from their gross income up to $5,250 a year of educational assistance 
provided by their employers. We are not talking about employers; we are 
talking about the employees who get to exclude it from their gross 
income. This helps the very people we are also trying to help with an 
increase in the minimum wage. It is a very popular employee benefit.
  Third, this amendment proposes to extend certain enhancements to the 
Coverdell education savings account. This is an important tool for 
Americans who want to save for future education expenses. Paul 
Coverdell was a beloved colleague of ours. I miss him. He was 
passionate on education. I am proud his name is attached to these 
savings accounts.
  The 2001 Tax Act made a number of reforms to enhance these Coverdell 
accounts. For example, it increased the annual contribution limit to 
$2,000 from $500 and expanded the definition of ``qualified expenses'' 
to include elementary and secondary schools. However, like the 
exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance, these 
enhancements expire soon. This amendment would make these improvements 
permanent.
  Education tax breaks are extremely important to all Americans but 
particularly working Americans. In fact, I think we would be hard 
pressed to find a student, parent, or teacher who does not support 
these provisions.

[[Page S1167]]

  I urge my colleagues to strengthen the education system of America 
and make these provisions permanent. That is the whole point of this 
amendment. If we do not succeed, I look forward to working with my 
chairman on the Finance Committee on another vehicle to make this 
happen. I know of his good will. I appreciate him and look forward to 
working with him on the committee on which we both sit to make sure, if 
this does not happen now, that it will happen soon. We are talking 
about real people and, with this amendment, real dollars that will make 
a real difference.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 204

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
second-degree amendment, No. 204, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 204) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there be 40 
minutes of debate to run concurrently on the Baucus amendment No. 206 
and the Smith amendment No. 113, the time controlled as follows: 30 
minutes under the control of Senator Baucus or his designee, 10 minutes 
under the control of Senator Smith; that no further second-degree 
amendment be in order to either amendment; that there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided between the votes; that upon the use or yielding 
back of the time, the Senate vote in relation to the Baucus amendment 
to be followed by a vote in relation to the Smith amendment, as 
amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will speak for a few minutes. Clearly 
education is one of our country's highest priorities. I don't think 
there is anybody in this body or in the other body on the other side of 
this Capitol who will disagree with that statement. It is certainly one 
of the most important, if not the most important. The pending Smith 
amendment, however, is not the right way to address this issue.
  First, the Senator did not offer his amendment in the committee of 
jurisdiction. There have not been hearings on this amendment. The 
committee has not had a chance to work on the amendment, and it shows. 
First, the amendment is not paid for. It would increase the deficit by 
$35 billion over 10 years. No. 2, it leaves in place overly complex tax 
provisions. It needs simplification. We clearly need to consolidate the 
myriad different education credits and deductions with which the people 
in the country are faced and have an almost impossible time trying to 
figure out. This amendment does not do the job.
  It also includes controversial provisions such as the Coverdell tax 
cuts for K-12 education, provisions I personally favor but I know many 
Members of this body have deep public policy concerns with. We need to 
focus on education. As chairman of the Committee on Finance, I pledge 
that this committee will work aggressively to develop a comprehensive 
education package that includes simplification of all the myriad 
current tax provisions and hopefully will be much more effective--do 
what it is supposed to do--and will also address the various needs of 
various people in our society, especially low-income people who have a 
hard time getting to college or getting into a voc-ed school, a 
community college, a tribal community college, or whatnot.
  We in America are in sixth place in a competitive index in the world 
and most of that is due to a lower standing in higher education, 
clearly behind Nordic countries and Singapore. To compete in a global 
economy, we need to focus to improve our educational system. It is my 
goal, if I have anything to do with it, in 3 or 4 or 5 years it will be 
known in the world that it is in America where the action is, it is in 
America where they are starting to get it right, they are starting to 
address and to figure out ways to make sure their kids--and a little 
older kids--are very well educated; where we Americans are so proud of 
what we are doing and other countries will recognize what we are doing.
  It will take work to get there, but that should be the goal, and I am 
doing what I can to help us get there. We know about the increase in 
college tuition and all the problems that is causing. My State of 
Montana has an especially difficult time. More than two-thirds of the 
students in my State receive grant aid. Frankly, that is a nationwide 
figure. In my State it is even higher; it is 80 percent. We need 
education assistance. Mr. President, 14,000 individuals from my State 
claim more than $35 million in tuition fee deductions; nationwide, more 
than 4.5 million people together claimed about $10 billion in tuition 
fee deductions. Again, simplify, target them, make it work so we are 
doing what we should be doing.
  Let me talk for a few minutes about how complicated these education 
provisions are. First, we have the HOPE scholarships and the Lifetime 
Learning credits.

  I might say to my colleagues, there are nine other types of tax 
benefits for education. Here they all are. I am sure everybody knows 
all about these and I am sure everybody understands them completely. 
First, the student loan interest deduction; next, tax-free treatment of 
canceled student loans; tax-free student loan repayment assistance; 
Coverdell education savings accounts featuring tax-free earnings; 
qualified tuition programs which also feature tax-free earnings; 
penalty-free early distributions from any type of retirement account 
arrangement for education costs; allowing families to cash in savings 
bonds for education costs without having to pay tax on the interest on 
those; tax-free educational benefits for employers; business deductions 
for work-related education. We have over 11 that I can count, and I 
don't think anybody knows them, not one person--maybe one person. Not 
very many people. If we have a hard time in this body understanding 
those, think of the poor students. Think of the families. Think of the 
people trying to make some sense out of all this.
  To some degree, voters in November were saying to us in Washington 
and around the country: People in Washington aren't listening to us. We 
have problems. They are not listening to us. Congress is a bit 
dysfunctional. What are they doing about education? We all know the 
need. What are they doing?
  My goal in the committee, working very closely with Senator Kennedy 
of the HELP Committee, is, together with their authorizing legislation 
and our tax legislation, to get the ball rolling so we are focusing on 
education. It is so important to me.
  We also, I might say, need to focus on the neediest. Current tax 
credits and deductions don't help the neediest. They don't have any 
income to pay income tax on. It is not targeted, all these lifetime 
scholarships and HOPE scholarships, and so forth. We had a great 
hearing in the Committee on Finance. Maybe while we consolidate and 
simplify--a very strong recommendation, I might say, by all those who 
appeared before us, is combined Pell grants. So many students get their 
aid through Pell grants. That is certainly true in community colleges, 
it is true in tribal colleges. Those are lower income students. It is 
Pell grants that they need and we need to boost Pell grant levels even 
higher.
  Also, working with Pell grants, make a simplified tax credit--maybe 
refundable. Lower income people need the money upfront. It doesn't make 
any difference to have it later on, a year later when they are figuring 
out tax returns. It has to be upfront. That is another recommendation 
given by a very impressive, persuasive witness before our committee a 
short time ago.
  We also need to think about covering not only tuition but also other 
education expenses. What about books, room and board, and so forth? The 
current major provisions cover tuition, tuition only. I think it is 
true that some of this has to be increased. Which ones, that is the 
question.
  Frankly, as we are talking about helping teachers with greater 
deductions, my view is: Find a way to give teachers greater pay. That 
is the real solution here, rather than saying you have to get a 
deduction so you can help pay for your students' expenses. We need to 
get teachers better pay. Even though we don't have primary 
jurisdiction, we are certainly creative around

[[Page S1168]]

here. We can figure out a way here in the Congress to help States pay 
better salaries to teachers so we get even better people teaching 
school than we have now. We have good teachers, but we need to also 
make sure they have the pay they need.
  The underlying minimum wage bill is paid for. This amendment is not 
paid for. The underlying total small business package is $8.3 billion 
and we pay for it. This is a $35 billion package, four or five times 
that, but it is not paid for. It was not discussed in committee. 
Slapdash here on the floor. That is not the way to do legislation. As I 
said many times, and I keep saying it because I believe it, in the 
Committee on Finance we are going to work as a committee because that 
is the best way to legislate. That means working with Democrats and 
with Republicans in a give and take to get a committee product. I 
pledge to my colleagues we are going to work mightily to get a very 
good education product from our committee in conjunction with the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, so the right hand knows what 
the left hand is doing.
  I do believe the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. With the 
two of us working together in cooperation from both sides of the 
aisle--and Senator Enzi, I am quite certain, has the same views--we are 
going to do something about education here. I fully believe that will 
happen.
  Now I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Montana and 
certainly my colleagues from Maine and from Oregon for their very 
intense interest on this very important issue. I come to the floor 
today to discuss and visit about what I also think is an enormously 
important priority for us here in the Senate, and that is education. I 
want to voice my support for action during the 110th Congress. I come 
to the floor not only as a Senator from the great State of Arkansas, 
but also as a mother. I come to the floor with twin boys in the fifth 
grade, having completed a fifth grade chemistry test this week along 
with a chemistry experiment, a unit test on ancient Egypt, and all the 
while talking with our students and teachers, and realizing all of the 
many challenges they face in making sure our children get the kind of 
education they need to be an active and productive part of the 21st 
century.
  I see what not just our teachers are up against but our families as 
well, and noticing as my husband left, not only on top of the question 
of what's for dinner and did you pick up my cleaning, but also he 
asked: Did you take part of that Christmas bonus and put it into the 
children's college account? I know that working families all across 
this country, much like mine and yours and others here, are realizing 
the critical role that education plays, not just in our families but in 
the success of this great country, and what it means to all of the 
different issues we face.
  Promoting education is an essential element of many of the efforts to 
prepare our workforce to meet the demands of today's increasingly 
competitive global marketplace. But it is also the key that will unlock 
the doors to solving so many of our challenges. Making sure our 
children are equipped with the knowledge and the skill and the tools is 
going to make the difference between whether we do reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and move to renewable fuels. It is the key to 
whether we are able to move forward in so many different scientific 
arenas and, looking at health care, are able to provide the kind of 
health care we need in this country, the expertise and the research 
that is necessary there--all of these challenges we face hinge on the 
job we do on education.
  I have no doubt in my mind that Chairman Baucus, along with Senator 
Grassley, working together in the Finance Committee, have every 
intention of making sure we do our level best in this session of 
Congress to address these issues through the incentives the Tax Code 
can provide us to encourage and reinforce our education system--both 
for our families as well as our educators--to do the right thing on 
behalf of our children and our country.
  I look forward to working with them.
  I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with my colleagues, with 
Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley and my friend from Oregon, Senator 
Smith, and Senator Collins, who have long histories of passion on this 
issue. We look for ways to use the Tax Code as a tool to help more of 
our children have that opportunity to receive quality education. Last 
Congress, we together introduced the Educational Opportunity Act of 
2006 so that existing education tax incentives are a more viable tool 
for our students and their families and educators, particularly in our 
rural communities. Already this year, as Chairman Baucus mentioned, the 
Finance Committee has had some very productive hearings, good 
conversations about what is important, what works, what doesn't; how do 
we get it out there to the people who need it the most in order to make 
sure the people of this country have the opportunity to give back to 
this great land. So I commend Senator Smith and Senator Collins on 
their efforts, and I wish to continue the dedication on this issue in 
working with them.
  Unfortunately, I agree with Senator Baucus: This is not the place to 
do this. We have many things to achieve in this 110th Congress, and the 
only way we will achieve them is if we take our time and make sure we, 
step-by-step, make the necessary moves that need to be made to 
accomplish all we have to do. I ran in the other day with a grocery 
sack that I had overfilled in an attempt to hurry and get to where I 
needed to be to do one more thing and it broke and everything went 
everywhere. It was awful, an awful experience because I knew it was my 
own fault. I had rushed and tried to put too much into one sack so that 
everything else fell apart.
  Under the wise leadership of Chairman Baucus, we have worked hard to 
make sure we craft a proposal on small business tax relief that will be 
productive, that will be the one step in this direction we need to take 
in a way that will be productive, but it won't overload, so that we 
don't get anything accomplished.
  So I plead with my colleagues. Looking at what Chairman Baucus and 
Ranking Member Grassley have done, with significant input and 
consideration by the entire Finance Committee, they have put together a 
very good package of small business tax relief to supplement the 
minimum wage, which we all agree is extremely overdue. The comments of 
my colleague from North Dakota couldn't have been more appropriate; the 
fact that we are trying now, having not been able to move a simple 
minimum wage, to do what we can do and to do it in a practical and 
moderate way.
  The package is a balanced one. It includes provisions that are 
supported on both sides of the aisle, such as small business expensing, 
the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and the S corporation reforms.
  The package is a responsible one. Compared to tax packages we have 
considered in the recent past, this one is much smaller, with a price 
tag of $8 billion, and not to mention it is completely paid for. When 
we take things one step at a time, we can act responsibly in paying for 
them. There is one thing we hear from our constituents, and that is: 
Please, please recognize the debt you are creating in this country has 
as much of an impact on our children as educating them does because 
they are going to be the ones left holding the bag.
  Finally, the package is targeted. When we began putting it together, 
there were a lot of us on the committee who had priorities we wanted to 
address. Senator Snowe and I care deeply about doing something on small 
business health care, as does Senator Stabenow, who has mentioned it 
many times as well. Senator Bingaman filed an amendment to expand the 
HOPE scholarship credit. Of course, there were many others. We all have 
our priorities, and we are all eager to address them. But if we take 
our time, if we move step-by-step and do it correctly, we will get to 
all of those issues. Under the leadership of Senator Baucus, he has 
pledged to us to work diligently in the Finance Committee to be able to 
address these issues.
  In response, we were asked, having come to the chairman about all of 
these issues, not to jump the gun but to focus on the bill at hand and 
to provide the committee and the larger body

[[Page S1169]]

the opportunity to take a more thorough look in regular order, so that 
we can reach consensus and make progress on those important issues, as 
we have with the small business tax relief.
  In the coming year, I know the HELP Committee will be extremely busy 
as they focus on the reauthorizing of No Child Left Behind. As they 
work on improving and extending our education policy from their end, I 
know that we on the Finance Committee will be doing the same with our 
tax policy. Chairman Baucus, through the Chair, I would like to have 
his reassurance--which I don't need, but I want the rest of the body to 
know--if he could clarify for us that, yes, the Finance Committee will, 
indeed, be taking up all of these many issues, but certainly these 
education issues that rest heavily on many of our minds, and that it is 
his intention to move on an education tax package, along with such 
other reauthorizations. I know the chairman has given me his word, and 
I know he wants to encourage others as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Arkansas and I be allowed to have a dialog without Senators losing 
the right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would say to my good friend from Arkansas that I very 
much want to reassure her. She is such a tremendous member of our 
committee and such an able Senator from her State, and I know her State 
is very proud of her. But the answer is definitely totally 100 percent 
yes. Education is one of my passions. It is so important. It means so 
much to me, and I know it does for all of us. I love going to schools 
and seeing the teaching in schools. It is one of the best parts of this 
job.
  I also wish to make sure that our kids and grandkids have the same 
quality of life, the same standard of living that we have been able to 
enjoy, and that means, given the global competition we face from other 
countries such as China and India, and so forth, we need the best, and 
we are going to have the best.
  So I say to my good friend, in the Committee on Finance, Senator 
Grassley and I are a very close team on the committee and we are going 
to move aggressively on ways to boost the availability and to help 
people get the very best education, in conjunction with Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Enzi, when No Child Left Behind is brought up, and other 
authorizing legislation on education comes up, so that we can do 
something that makes us all on both sides of the aisle proud to address 
education.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman for that because I do think it is important. I have every 
confidence the chairman will do that. I know he will. He has told me 
that and he has told many others. I wanted the rest of the Senators to 
know he truly has a commitment, in terms of recognizing that we on the 
Finance Committee have a unique opportunity to help provide America's 
working families with the incentives they need and the tools they need 
to invest in their children. I know he believes in that passionately, 
and I am so pleased he will be working with us on that, and I know he 
will. It is obviously an extremely important issue to our friend, the 
Senator from Oregon, and to the Senator from Maine. It is important to 
me as a parent, as an Arkansan, and I think it is important to every 
one of our constituents that we are desperately trying to ensure that 
their children are given the tools to succeed in life.
  My mother used to always say that if you want to do something nice 
for me, do something wonderful for my children. That is what we are 
here to say today. So after all, there should be no higher priority 
than providing our children the opportunity to succeed, and I look 
forward to working with the Finance Committee to do that.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, could I ask the time allotment on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 30 seconds, and the 
Senator from Wyoming has 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I don't see the Senator from Oregon on the floor. I don't 
know if other Senators wish to speak on the pending amendment. I don't 
see other Senators on the floor. I would ask my good friend for a 
little bit of assistance in this matter.
  Mr. ENZI. It is my understanding they do not wish to speak. I would 
like to reserve the time until I hear some of the other comments. I 
have nothing to say at the moment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we have two votes coming up shortly, and 
I would like to speak to a couple of points on my amendment. 
Essentially, my amendment is a sense of the Senate that we will, and 
must, work under the provisions we have been discussing in the last few 
minutes. It says we believe the taxpayers play such an important role 
making education more affordable, and it also says we should pay for 
it. That is something I must say, and I will say, as my good friend 
from Minnesota as well as other Senators have said, that there are a 
lot of ways to find the so-called pay-fors we should find, the so-
called pay-fors, in closing tax loopholes. There is a lot of 
constructive talk--in fact, I initiated a lot of it--about the tax gap, 
about $350 billion of income taxes owed to the Government--owed but not 
collected--$350 billion every year owed but not collected--without 
raising any taxes, without passing any legislation that increases 
taxes. That is $350 billion that should be collected, and we are not 
collecting it. I am not saying we could get it all, but I am saying we 
should get a lot of it. Part of that is payroll taxes that is not 
collected. The estimates are $50 billion, $60 billion in payroll taxes 
that are not being collected. Well, adding $30 billion, $40 billion a 
year to the Social Security trust fund wouldn't hurt. Adding a few 
billion dollars to the hospital insurance Part A trust fund wouldn't 
hurt. We have to work hard to find that.
  My point is we can find the so-called pay-fors when we do the things 
we need to do. So this is not some big pipe dream: Sure, we are going 
to talk about this stuff. I am saying we are going to enact the kinds 
of provisions we are talking about. It could be up to $35 billion, 
which is the amount contained in this amendment but which is not paid 
for. As I mentioned, it is under the alternative amendment, that is the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon, which doesn't address the 
complexity, it doesn't address a lot of real problems.
  I said, perhaps a bit unfairly, it is a slapdash amendment on the 
floor, but it is true it is an amendment of first impression. This is 
the first we have seen it. It never came up in the committee. I am 
trying, in a small way in this Congress, to try to anticipate subjects 
that are going to come up on the floor, anticipate major amendments 
that are going to come up on the floor, in the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Committee on Finance, and have hearings on them. 
Let's get experts to come and tell us about them so we can modify them 
and make them work, rather than seeing them for the first time on the 
floor and wondering what in the heck this is and what it is all about.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate 
amendment which I am offering. I think it is the right way to get at 
the problem. As I have said many times, I pledge to my colleagues that 
we on the Finance Committee are going to dig into this. We are going to 
find ways to make sure we have the best education tax provisions we can 
possibly get. Therefore, I urge a positive vote on my amendment. After 
that, I encourage Senators to vote against the Smith amendment. He 
means well, he is a good guy, but there is a time and place for 
everything. This is not the time and place for the Smith amendment. 
There will be a time and place later on this year for those subjects 
and the able Senator from Oregon is a member of the committee and I 
know we are going to hear from him on his amendments and he will be 
right. These provisions we can address and will address.
  So I am prepared to yield back my time. I know the Senator from 
Massachusetts was seeking time to speak, but apparently he no longer 
is.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, before the Senator yields back his time, I 
need to say that Senator Smith is on his way to the floor to make a 
couple more comments.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be 
charged equally to both sides.

[[Page S1170]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I think everything that could be said and 
should be said has been said. I ask for the yeas and nays if they have 
not already been asked for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been requested.
  Mr. SMITH. I request the yeas and nays on the Smith amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 206

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, we yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 206.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Biden
     Bond
     Coburn
     Dodd
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Menendez
     Schumer
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 206) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 113, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the amendment of the Senator from 
Oregon, No. 113, as amended.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President and colleagues, we have just voted for a 
sense of the Senate unanimously to do what the next amendment says we 
should do. And we should do it today. My mother used to always say: 
Son, never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
  I say we should do today the following things with this next vote: 
make permanent the deduction for qualified tuition expenses; make 
permanent the employee exclusion from gross income of employer-provided 
education assistance; make permanent the enhancements to the Coverdell 
education savings accounts.
  Do it today. That helps working folks and families struggling to pay 
for education. Let's not put off until later what we can do right now. 
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, while I appreciate my colleague from 
Oregon and his commitment to education, this is not an omnibus tax 
bill; it is long overdue legislation to increase the minimum wage. It 
is not an opportunity for Members to present their tax cut wish list. 
It is Congress's opportunity to finally right the wrong of denying 
millions of hard working minimum wage workers a raise for 10 years.
  Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues filed more than 25 
amendments proposing new or expanded tax cuts. Many of them would cost 
billions of dollars. None of them are paid for.
  This amendment would extend several tax benefits for education that I 
strongly support, but it should be paid for. It would cost $35 billion 
over the next decade. That cost should be offset by the elimination of 
unjustified corporate tax loopholes that are currently draining the 
Treasury.
  I also can not support his amendment because it seeks to make 
permanent tax benefits that I believe represent misplaced priorities. 
The amendment would extend the Coverdell education savings account 
provision, which provides benefits to families with children in private 
elementary and secondary schools, while doing nothing to improve our 
Nation's public school system.
  And this amendment does nothing for working families who do not have 
enough assets and savings to participate in the Coverdell scheme.
  As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service notes:

     the main outcome of extending the [Coverdell accounts] to pay 
     for K-12 education expenses may be to slightly subsidize 
     higher income families who might have sent their children to 
     private school anyway.

  While Coverdell accounts might help richer families send their 
children to private school, it does nothing to address what parents are 
calling for to improve public schools.
  The Coverdell bill does not: put qualified teachers in the classroom; 
reduce class sizes; modernize or repair school buildings; provide 
additional afterschool opportunities; or hold schools accountable for 
improved student achievement.
  At a time when we are asking our schools to do more under the No 
Child Left Behind, while failing to live up to our funding commitments, 
we should not divert billions of tax dollars to support private 
schools. This year over half of the school districts in America will 
see their title I funding cut. Funding for the No Child Left Behind Act 
has fallen over $55 billion short of the amount promised 5 years ago.
  We are over $8 billion under the amount promised to ensure equal 
education opportunities to disabled students just 2 years ago when we 
reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  Reversing these shortfalls should be our priority in this Congress, 
not making permanent a tax benefit that promotes private schools over 
public schools.
  I do strongly support the extension of the deduction for qualified 
tuition and related expenses for higher education, which is set to 
expire at the end of 2007. This deduction allows middle-income 
Americans to take a deduction for higher education expenses of up to 
$4,000. The IRS estimates that nearly 4.7 million students and families 
in the U.S. took advantage of the deduction in 2004.
  I look forward to working on this proposal as we move forward with 
the debate on college affordability and higher education in the coming 
weeks.
  We must prioritize making college more affordable.

[[Page S1171]]

  The cost of college has more than tripled in the last 20 years. Each 
year, 400,000 students who are qualified to attend a 4-year college 
find themselves shut out because of cost factors.
  As a result, students and families are pinching pennies more than 
ever to pay for higher education and more students and families are 
taking out loans to finance higher education.
  We must provide them relief with a comprehensive strategy that starts 
with a substantial increase in the Pell grant. As the cost of even 
public college tuition and fees has climbed by an unacceptable 46 
percent since 2001, the maximum Pell grant has not increased even a 
penny. This Congress should quickly act to remedy this.
  We also should reform the student loan programs and use the savings 
to increase student aid. Senator Smith has joined me in introducing the 
STAR Act, which provides incentives for schools to participate in the 
cheaper federal student loan program and uses savings to increase need-
based aid generating over $13 billion over 10 years in need-based aid 
at no additional cost.
  Finally, Congress should make college loan payments more affordable 
by reducing interest rates and capping monthly loan payments.
  I plan to address these issues in our committee very soon and I would 
welcome Senator Smith's contributions to that legislation and that 
debate.
  I also look forward to working with him, Senator Baucus and other 
members of the Finance Committee as they develop a responsible tax 
package that helps middle class and low-income families afford to send 
their children to college.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I appreciate the admonition and good 
counsel of my good friend from Oregon. My mother used to say: If you 
can do it, do it now. My mother used to also say: If you are going to 
do it now, do it right the first time. This is not doing it right the 
first time.
  We rejected, about an hour ago, a similar amendment; that is, an 
amendment that was not offered in committee. I do not mean to be 
pejorative, but it is sort of a slapdash amendment, thought up, not 
considered in committee.
  This amendment is just too complex. It causes a big increase in the 
budget deficit. It is not paid for. I have a whole list of reasons why 
we should not adopt this amendment. Essentially, we will get to these 
issues in committee, and that will be the right time and place to deal 
with these issues.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 505(a) of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution 
on the budget for fiscal year 2004.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable portion of 
the Budget Act and urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bond
     Coburn
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Schumer
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think we had an agreement to speak. I 
ask unanimous consent, if the floor managers agree, to commence my time 
at 4:45. A number of Senators have amendments they want to offer during 
that period of time between now and 4:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
understand we are working out a time agreement. I would like to try to 
see what the time is. I have heard we then want to vote--some have said 
we are going to vote at 5:15. I don't understand what the time 
agreement is. I want to cooperate, and will, with the Senator. If we 
can withhold for a minute or two so that we can get the time agreement, 
if others want to speak, I certainly won't object to it. I understand 
we had an agreement, but I am not sure of the particulars yet and what 
it all means.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I understood that an agreement had been reached to vote 
at 5:15. We had agreed to 30 minutes equally divided. I left a few 
minutes for some others who want to speak. That was my suggestion.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see other Senators. If they want to 
introduce amendments for a minute or two until we get this straightened 
out, if that is their purpose, that is fine. I have no objection to 
that while we are trying to work this through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama withdraw his 
request?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask the chairman that the 10 minutes be 
divided between Senators Burr, Chambliss, and Allard.
  Mr. ALLARD. If the Senator from Wyoming will yield, I need more than 
a few minutes. I need probably about 7 minutes. Maybe if I can get 7 
minutes after the vote, that would be all right.
  Mr. ENZI. So the unanimous consent request is to divide the 10 
minutes, or the time until 4:45, between Senators Burr and Chambliss, 
and after the vote, 7 minutes for Senator Allard.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield for a question, can we add 
that I be allowed up to 15 minutes before the vote at 5:15, or 
thereabouts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have tried to be accommodating, and I 
have heard that people want to vote at 5:15 and 5:30. I want to make 
sure that we are going to get a fair share of the time. I will have to 
object until we have an agreement. I think we are going to get the 
agreement. What has been outlined on the floor is not what the 
agreement is going to say. If we have an agreement in terms of time, I 
think we ought to follow that. If there is going to be objection, that 
is fine. I will be around here. They told me there were Members who 
wanted to vote by 5:30 because of traveling. I want to accommodate 
that, and I want to make sure we divide the time between now and 5:30.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Kennedy's concern. 
All I am asking for is 10, 15 minutes before we vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, whenever we are going to vote, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama have 15 minutes prior 
to that time. We will try to work out the time

[[Page S1172]]

before that with the floor staff. But we have that locked in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending 
amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 195 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 195.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], for himself, 
     Mr. DeMint and Mr. Coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 
     195.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for an exemption to a minimum wage increase for 
  certain employers who contribute to their employees health benefit 
                               expenses)

       At the end of section 102, add the following:
       (c) Exception in the Case of Provision of Health 
     Benefits.--Notwithstanding the amendment made by subsection 
     (a), an employer to which such amendment applies shall have 
     the option to--
       (1) increase the minimum wage paid to employees as required 
     under such amendment; or
       (2) provide such employees with health care benefits that 
     are equal (in terms of the monetary amount expended by the 
     employer for such benefits) to the monetary amount by which 
     the minimum wage is to be increased pursuant to such 
     amendment.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to commend my 
colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi. There is no question that 
we need to do something on minimum wage. What I am trying to do is 
realize that, as we do this, we do it in the wisest way we possibly 
can.
  My simple amendment is very brief. It allows employers, with the 
increase we are making in minimum wage, to supply that equal dollar 
amount in health care benefits. Think about that. It would be the 
option of the employer to invest the $2.10 in the health care benefits 
of his or her employee. Some will probably suggest that is not enough.
  If you look at the national average today for 100 percent of an 
individual's premium, the national average, based on the Kaiser 
Foundation, is $4,248. Well, based upon the amount we are proposing to 
raise the minimum wage, that leaves $120 to spare after we have paid 
100 percent of that individual's health care. Stretch it a little bit 
further and apply it to a family, and that $4,368 that we are going to 
increase their wages by would provide almost 50 percent of the premium 
of a family plan.
  You know, we talk about extending health care to all Americans, about 
the need to provide the resources for people to have affordable and 
accessible health care. Well, here is a way to do it. Let's allow those 
employers to have a benefit package that they extend to minimum wage 
workers for the first time so those who are most at risk might have the 
opportunity to be supplied health care by their employer, negotiated at 
the group rate.
  Some might think that all Americans don't have a dog in this fight. I 
say they do. For every American we can put under the umbrella of 
coverage, we have reduced the cost shift in health care to where 
insurance premiums for the average person today will not continue to go 
up at the rate it is today. My hope is that even if it is incremental, 
we can bring more Americans under the umbrella of coverage.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will see the great benefit we are 
talking about now, money designated to increase the wages of 
individuals, and we will at least allow employers the option to give 
them that benefit in health care. I think it is a very reasonable 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 118 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 118.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] for himself, Mr. 
     Isakson, Mr. Burr and Mrs. Dole, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 118.

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

   (Purpose: To provide minimum wage rates for agricultural workers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. WAGES FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

       Section (6)(a)(5) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) if such employee is employed in agriculture, or is 
     employed to provide agriculture labor or services pursuant to 
     section 218 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1188), not less than the greater of--
       ``(A) the minimum wage rate in effect under paragraph (1) 
     after December 31, 1977; or
       ``(B) the prevailing wage established by the Occupational 
     Employment Statistics program, or other wage survey, 
     conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the county of 
     intended employment, for entry level workers who are employed 
     in agriculture in the area of work to be performed.''.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the support of 
Senator Burr and Senator Isakson on this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dole be added as a cosponsor of 
my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to remedy 
a wage issue that is a tremendous burden for some of our Nation's 
agricultural employers. There are about 1 million agricultural workers 
in the country today, and roughly half of them are illegal workers.
  As we expand the Border Patrol's presence on the border and the 
efforts of our men and women on the Border Patrol become more 
successful, farmers and ranchers who have historically relied on an 
illegal workforce have started to feel the squeeze, and they should. A 
labor shortage has resulted in a number of areas. This labor shortage 
occurs because agriculture is a traditional gateway of illegal 
immigration into the United States.
  Many illegal immigrants come to the United States, work for a while 
on a farm, and, as they integrate into our society, they find different 
jobs, such as those in hospitality or construction. Therefore, the 
illegal agricultural workforce has continuously relied upon new workers 
crossing the border illegally and starting out on the farm.
  As a result of these events, a number of Senators and advocacy groups 
have argued for a greater urgency in immigration reform in the 
agricultural sector.
  I have spoken with farmers and ranchers all across America advocating 
immigration reform, and I always ask them: Do you use the H-2A program? 
This is the legal temporary worker program in law today that allows for 
an unlimited number of temporary agricultural workers to come to the 
United States and work and then return to their home country and return 
again and again as needed.
  The primary response to my question is, they don't use the existing 
program, that it is too costly, and it is too bureaucratic. There are 
several other issues they have with the H-2A program that I attempted 
to remedy in the context of the immigration debate last year, and I 
will continue to work on those efforts when the Senate takes up the 
issue of immigration reform this Congress.
  However, the largest prohibitive cost of using the H-2A program is 
its mandated artificially inflated wages. If we are truly looking for 
ways to make sure our agricultural workforce is legal, then addressing 
this and obtaining legal agricultural workers is something that should 
be fixed on this legislation.
  If the Senate passes this amendment, we will see an immediate 
increase in the number of legal workers on our Nation's farms and fewer 
crop losses resulting from the lack of labor. The high cost of the H-2A 
program increases every year, and it will increase

[[Page S1173]]

even more with the passage of the minimum wage legislation we are 
considering today.
  Agricultural employers who utilize the legal program are mandated to 
pay the adverse effect wage rate to all their workers, in addition to 
providing free housing, paying all visa and consular fees, and paying 
for the transportation and meal costs of those workers traveling to 
their farms.
  Historically, approval for an employer to use nonimmigrant temporary 
workers was predicated on the following conditions being met: First, no 
U.S. workers were available to fill the specific job, and, second, that 
wages for that occupation would not be depressed by the hiring of 
foreign workers.
  The imposition of a prevailing wage requirement as determined by the 
U.S. Department of Labor approved surveys in each State for specific 
occupations generally filled by temporary nonimmigrant workers would 
ensure three things:
  First, that available U.S. workers would not be discouraged from 
applying for a job because it paid lower than usual local wages; 
second, all workers, both foreign and domestic, would be paid a wage 
that was competitive in the local area, thus avoiding depressing wages 
for that occupation; and third, that the use of foreign workers would 
not be more financially attractive to employers than employing U.S. 
workers.
  Prevailing wages are determined by the U.S. Department of Labor 
through its State partners, using a methodology that is designed to 
capture a fair wage that reflects the local standards peculiar to a 
particular occupation.
  At the present time, prevailing wages are required for H-1B, H-2B, 
and permanent work-related visas. However, employers of H-2A workers, 
temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers, are required to pay a 
different wage rate called the adverse effect wage rate. Unlike 
prevailing wages which are established for a local area for specific 
jobs and determined by the level of experience, skill, and education 
which those jobs require, the adverse effect wage rate is an average of 
all wages, including incentive pay, bonuses, and seniority, for all 
farm jobs in a multi-State region.
  Additionally, the adverse effect wage rate is not determined by the 
U.S. Department of Labor, the agency charged with determining wages for 
all other industries and occupations. Rather, the U.S. Department of 
Labor has chosen to use a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. Officials in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National 
Agricultural Statistics Service readily admit that the wage survey used 
for the adverse effect wage rate was never designed to set specific 
wages, only to describe them in general. Therefore, the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service's survey creates an artificial, multi-
State wage floor, one that significantly increases annually, regardless 
of the economy, the agricultural market and competitive factors within 
a product line or local area.
  For instance, while the minimum wage remained constant for entry-
level jobs for the 10-year period starting in 1997 until today, the 
average adverse effect wage rate has increased 40 percent over that 
same period. As the National Council of Agricultural Employers noted in 
an alert to their membership:

       The increase in the Federal minimum wage is likely to 
     result in a larger than normal increase in the adverse effect 
     wage rate for several years after the new minimum wage 
     becomes effective as the upward adjustment in the wage rates 
     works its way through the agricultural industry.

  This is because the adverse effect wage rate is set at the average 
field and livestock worker hourly earnings, and upward adjustment in 
wages at the lower end of the agricultural wage distribution resulting 
in the increase from the minimum wage will, of course, raise the 
average hourly earnings for agricultural workers, generally.
  Furthermore, the lower wage jobs that disappear as a result of the 
increase in the minimum wage will no longer be part of the average, 
forcing the adverse effect wage rate up even higher. Increased wages in 
agriculture will only hasten the movement of agricultural production to 
foreign soils.
  Maybe the reason we have upward of 500,000 illegal foreign workers in 
agriculture today is because of the prohibitively high cost of using 
the legal H-2A program or maybe it is because we don't pay Americans 
who work on our farms and ranches enough.
  While we guarantee a minimum of the adverse effect wage rate to 
temporary foreign workers, U.S. workers in agriculture are guaranteed 
only a minimum wage. So in my home State of Georgia, a temporary H-2A 
worker today is guaranteed $8.37 an hour, while an American worker is 
guaranteed only $5.15 an hour.
  My amendment is very simple, and it attempts to remedy the two 
possible causes of the lack of legal workers on our Nation's farms and 
ranches. This amendment changes the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure 
that all farm workers, regardless of whether they are temporary foreign 
workers or U.S. citizens, be paid a prevailing wage. Adoption of this 
amendment will attract more legal workers to agricultural employment by 
allowing more farmers to access the Legal Temporary Worker Program and 
by guaranteeing U.S. workers higher wages on our Nation's farms.
  Prevailing wages reflect geographic location, occupation, and skill 
level. The use of prevailing wages will improve competition within the 
United States without negatively affecting workers and will keep 
agricultural jobs at home.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                 Amendment No. 167 to Amendment No. 118

  (Purpose: To improve agricultural job opportunities, benefits, and 
               security for aliens in the United States)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, I call up 
amendment No. 167, a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 118.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mrs. 
     Feinstein, for herself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 167 to amendment No. 118.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between 4:50 p.m. and 5:40 p.m. be equally divided and controlled by 
Senators Kennedy and Sessions for debate with respect to the Sessions 
amendment No. 148, with no second-degree amendment in order prior to 
the vote at 5:40 p.m., and that the Senate proceed to vote in relation 
to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the time is divided. Does the Senator 
from Alabama want to make a brief opening comment; otherwise, I will 
speak.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would be pleased to make opening 
comments. I guess the time of 5:40 p.m. was selected by the leadership 
or something.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Or something.
  Mr. SESSIONS. One of my goals was to hurry up so we could vote at 
5:15 p.m. Now they decided they wanted to vote at 5:40. It is not my 
fault, I say to my colleagues. I did reduce the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator call up his amendment.


                 Amendment No. 148 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 148 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mr. 
     Inhofe, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 148 
     to amendment No. 100.

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

   (Purpose: To prohibit employers who unlawfully employ aliens from 
                    receiving government contracts)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 274A(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a(e)) is amended

[[Page S1174]]

     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Prohibition on award of government contracts, 
     grants, and agreements.--
       ``(A) Employers with no contracts, grants, or agreements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii) and subparagraph 
     (C), if an employer who does not hold a Federal contract, 
     grant, or cooperative agreement is determined to have 
     violated this section, the employer shall be debarred from 
     the receipt of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative 
     agreement for a period of 7 years.
       ``(ii) Placement on excluded list.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security or the Attorney General shall advise the 
     Administrator of General Services of the debarment of an 
     employer under clause (i) and the Administrator of General 
     Services shall list the employer on the List of Parties 
     Excluded from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs 
     for a period of 7 years.
       ``(iii) Waiver.--

       ``(I) Authority.--The Administrator of General Services, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
     Attorney General, may waive operation of clause (i) or may 
     limit the duration or scope of a debarment under clause (i) 
     if such waiver or limitation is necessary to national defense 
     or in the interest of national security.
       ``(II) Notification to congress.--If the Administrator 
     grants a waiver or limitation described in subclause (I), the 
     Administrator shall submit to each member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives immediate notice of 
     such waiver or limitation.
       ``(III) Prohibition on judicial review.--The decision of 
     whether to debar or take alternative action under this clause 
     shall not be judicially reviewed.

       ``(B) Employers with contracts, grants, or agreements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii) and subclause 
     (C), an employer who holds a Federal contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement and is determined to have violated this 
     section shall be debarred from the receipt of new Federal 
     contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements for a period of 
     10 years.
       ``(ii) Notice to agencies.--Prior to debarring the employer 
     under clause (i), the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     cooperation with the Administrator of General Services, shall 
     advise any agency or department holding a contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement with the employer of the Government's 
     intention to debar the employer from the receipt of new 
     Federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements for a 
     period of 10 years.
       ``(iii) Waiver.--

       ``(I) Authority.--After consideration of the views of any 
     agency or department that holds a contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement with the employer, the Administrator of 
     General Services, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and the Attorney General, may waive 
     operation of clause (i) or may limit the duration or scope of 
     the debarment under clause (i) if such waiver or limitation 
     is necessary to the national defense or in the interest of 
     national security.
       ``(II) Notification to congress.--If the Administrator 
     grants a waiver or limitation described in subclause (I), the 
     Administrator shall submit to each member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the Senate and of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives immediate notice of 
     such waiver or limitation.
       ``(III) Prohibition on judicial review.--The decision of 
     whether to debar or take alternate action under this clause 
     shall not be judicially reviewed.

       ``(C) Exemption from penalty for employers participating in 
     the basic pilot program.--In the case of imposition on an 
     employer of a debarment from the receipt of a Federal 
     contract, grant, or cooperative agreement under subparagraph 
     (A) or (B), that penalty shall be waived if the employer 
     establishes that the employer was voluntarily participating 
     in the basic pilot program under section 403(a) of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) at the time of the violations 
     of this section that resulted in the debarment.''.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the whole purpose of the Minimum Wage 
Act is to increase the wages of working Americans, particularly low-
skilled workers who are paid minimum wage-level salaries and who are 
having a difficult time. That is a noble goal because I don't think 
their salaries have gone up as much as we would like.
  One of the reasons, as I discussed earlier and will discuss again 
before this debate concludes, that those salaries have lagged behind is 
because of a large influx of illegal immigrant labor. That is 
indisputable, and it has not been discussed much. People apparently 
don't want to talk about it. We are going to talk about it.
  We, also, have with regard to Government employees and Government 
contractors, a significant loophole we ought to fix that involves 
national security, as well as competition for American workers, and 
that is the purpose of this amendment No. 148, which I note has been 
cosponsored by Senator Grassley and Senator Coburn.
  This amendment would focus only on contractors who do work for the 
Federal Government. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get an 
agreement to have a vote on raising the penalties for other businesses 
in America from $250 as a fine for hiring illegals as I would have on 
amendment No. 142. That has been objected to by the Democratic 
leadership. I think we ought to vote on that amendment. It is a bigger 
issue, but at this point, we will be able to proceed to a vote on 
amendment No. 148.
  Employment verification is the responsibility of an employer when 
someone is hired. It exists in paper form and was mandated in 1986 as 
part of that 1986 amnesty, in which 3 million people were legalized. We 
promised not to allow this kind of problem to happen again, and we set 
up a system that was supposed to work to verify the citizenship of 
people or their legality when they came to work.
  Employers under the 1986 act must identify work authorization 
documents from each new person they hire, fill out form I-9 with an 
attestation and retain the I-9s in case the Department of Homeland 
Security wishes to look at them. That is what they are required to do.
  Unfortunately, anything that looks good they often accept and some of 
them argue they have to accept. They don't look behind these documents, 
and there is no real verification. Many are totally bogus and 
fraudulent. Thousands and tens of thousands of documents are submitted 
with Social Security numbers that are all zeros. I think it was 50,000 
Social Security numbers in this country that were all zeros. How bogus 
is that?
  So an alternative to the paper I-9 system that has not been working, 
an Electronic Employment Verification System, was created in a pilot. 
It is used voluntarily by about 13,000 employers throughout this 
country to verify work authorization when hiring new employees.
  The amendment before us today would prohibit contractors for the 
Government that get caught hiring illegal aliens from obtaining a new 
Government contract for up to 7 years or 10 years, depending on whether 
they currently have a contract with the Government.
  We voted for this concept in the immigration bill previously, but a 
waiver from this debarment from contract work--and that is a 
substantial penalty for some of these companies--would be available for 
national defense and national security purposes.
  Contractors, in addition, would be protected from this debarment, 
this ban, if they are using the EEVS system, or the Basic Pilot Program 
to verify the legality of the employers. It is used by the Senate, it 
is used by the House, it is used by every Government agency, and it is 
used by 13,000 businesses throughout this country.
  All one has to do, basically, is your administrative officer or 
appropriate staff person goes online and checks the Social Security 
number or documents of the employee to verify their legality, and if 
they come up legal, they are able to hire them. The same would be true 
for these contractors who do contract work for the Federal Government. 
If they don't do that and they hire people who are illegal, then they 
could suffer the consequences. It would require them to do that. I 
think it only makes good sense.
  Most economists do not dispute the contention that illegal work by 
illegal workers lowers the overall wage rate for particular industries, 
especially unskilled workers. Since the minimum wage is intended to 
raise the wage levels of these mostly unskilled workers, it is 
appropriate for us to consider the wages of Americans if contractors 
can easily obtain illegal labor from illegal immigrants and there would 
be fewer Americans hired to these jobs, and it would depress the wages, 
I submit, in reality and in theory.
  Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when 9 minutes is up.
  Many scholars and policymakers, including the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, the Heritage Foundation, on 
either side of the debate have advocated for some form of advanced 
mandatory employment verification system as one of the main tools 
necessary to prevent

[[Page S1175]]

another surge of illegal immigration and to protect employers from 
liability, or being held accountable, for inadvertently hiring illegal 
workers. There have been a lot of problems with that, I will admit it. 
It is time for us to give clear direction to the employers and a clear 
system that will work. This amendment takes the first step. We 
encourage but not require the contractors to use an EEVS system, by 
providing them with protection from any liability if they use it.
  If anyone should be following the system, any businesses should be, 
it ought to be businesses doing work for the U.S. taxpayers, spending 
money that belongs to the U.S. taxpayers.
  Large numbers of illegal workers are being hired in America today. We 
know that. The vast majority of businesses carefully follow the law, 
but many of them, unfortunately, do not. Some are even contractors who 
are working on sensitive Government contracts.
  Let me tell you, we have a problem. I will share some information 
about it. It impacts jobs, the economy, and our national security.
  The Associated Press reported last Friday, January 19, that nearly 40 
illegal immigrants hired by contractors working on 3 military bases in 
Georgia, Virginia, and Nevada, were arrested last week by the ICE 
Agency, the immigration enforcement group. Twenty-four of the illegal 
immigrant workers were arrested while trying to enter Fort Benning, GA, 
to do construction at the military base. According to the ICE, the 
illegal immigrants worked for different subcontractors.
  My 9 minutes is up. I will try to finish in a couple of minutes, a 
very few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. According to ICE, the illegal immigrants work for 
different subcontractors who are not facing any charges from the 
Government. Unfortunately, that is not a new problem. In October of 
2005, seven illegal aliens were arrested for working at the U.S. Air 
Force base in Idaho. They were employed by a subcontractor.
  Also, last October, 2006, three illegal workers were working at Fort 
Bragg and they were arrested.
  In 2005 alone, ICE arrested 6 illegal aliens working at Homestead Air 
Reserve Base in Florida, 48 illegal aliens working at the Seymour 
Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina, 9 illegal aliens performing 
contract work at a facility that refits Navy aircraft in North 
Carolina, 18 working for a San Diego company that performed maintenance 
on U.S. Navy vessels.
  According to an Empire Journal article, a huge problem is that 
employers can participate in a voluntary program to verify employee 
work eligibility, but they suffer no penalty for failing to check the 
validity of the Social Security numbers.
  The article concluded:

       A weak law allows the employer to see the document and if 
     the document looks genuine to the employer, the employer 
     cannot be held responsible for hiring the illegal immigrant.

  It is astounding how widespread this problem is. In a report by ICE 
in 2005, a company contracted by the Navy to paint ships was found to 
employ 86 illegals who had security passes giving them access to the 
entire Navy base in San Diego.
  In 2004, 41 suspected illegal aliens were apprehended while working 
for a Department of Defense contractor that was providing Boeing with 
anti-missile systems and radar--top security type equipment.
  Also, in 2004, seven foreign nationals were arrested for working 
illegally at the Fort Polk Joint Readiness Training Center in 
Louisiana. They were ``role players'' in combat exercises to prepare 
soldiers for combat in Iraq.
  In one alarming incident, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was 
caught allowing illegal aliens to obtain bogus documentation by using 
fake Social Security numbers to work as contract painters in nuclear 
facilities.
  Representative Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, stated:

       Commission regulations are supposed to ensure that 
     individuals who are able to access nuclear facilities are 
     subject to appropriate background and security checks but 
     they clearly did not work in this case.

  This amendment would fix key weaknesses in the employer verification 
system, provide a defense to companies that follow the rules and act in 
good faith, and debar companies that violate the rule.
  We will not tolerate that, with taxpayers' money on taxpayers' 
contracts.
  We want to help people in this country get higher wages. I have 
talked about that for some time. We need to consider and take the 
advice, I believe, of Dr. Barry Chiswick, head of the Department of 
Economics at the University of Illinois in Chicago, when he testified 
before the Senate committee last spring. He said:

       The large increase in low-skilled immigration . . . has had 
     the effect of decreasing the wages and employment 
     opportunities of low-skilled workers who are currently 
     residing in the United States.
       Over the past two decades . . . [t]he real earnings of low-
     skilled workers has either stagnated or decreased somewhat.

  This is Dr. Chiswick. He goes on to say:

       We . . . need to . . . provide greater assistance to low-
     skilled Americans in their quest for better jobs and higher 
     wages. [O]ne of the ways we can help them in this regard is 
     by reducing the very substantial competition they are facing 
     from this very large and uncontrolled low-skilled immigration 
     that is the result of both our legal immigration system and 
     the absence of enforcement of immigration law.

  Professor Harry Holzer, Associate Dean and Professor of Public Policy 
at Georgetown, said this before the Judiciary Committee last spring. He 
believes American workers do want jobs currently held by illegal 
laborers and he believes that absent illegal immigrant competition, 
employers would raise wages and improve working conditions to attract 
American workers.
  Absolutely that will happen. This is what the Associate Dean and 
Professor of Public Policy in Georgetown said:

       I believe that when immigrants are illegal, they do more to 
     undercut the wages of native born workers because the playing 
     field isn't level and the employers don't have to pay them 
     market wages . . . [T]here are jobs in industries like 
     construction I think are more appealing to native-born 
     workers and many native-born low-income men might be 
     interested in more of those jobs. . . . Absent the 
     immigrants, the employer might need to raise those wages and 
     improve those conditions of work to entice native-born 
     workers into those jobs.

  As we consider this, let's also consider the relevance of unfair 
competition to low-skilled workers. Let's let their wages go up in this 
time of unprecedented prosperity and GDP growth and profits. Let's let 
the workers' salaries go up. One way to do that is eliminate this 
competition from large numbers of illegal workers.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when there 
is 5 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is now 10 after 5 on the fifth day 
that the Senate has been considering raising the minimum wage from 
$5.15 to $7.25 over a 2-year period. We have not, as we have heard in 
the course of this debate, raised it in the last 10 years. This is just 
going to restore the purchasing power of those on the lower rungs of 
the economic ladder to what it was 10 years ago. It won't even give 
them an increase, simply restore the purchasing power.
  Five days we have been debating a rather simple concept that everyone 
in this institution knows and has voted on a number of times--whether 
it is over here in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. For 
10 years, Republican leadership has refused to let us get a vote on 
increasing the minimum wage. Let's have no mistake about it--10 years, 
the Republican leadership has basically refused to let us get it, even 
though a majority of the Members in this body, a handful of those 
Republican Members, have favored an increase in the minimum wage. But 
we have been unable to get to the numbers sufficient to break the 
effective filibuster and deny us the opportunity to vote.
  These individuals, individuals who have been receiving the minimum 
wage, and their families and their allies and their supporters and the 
workers of this country, the trade union movement, the AFL/CIO, the 
church

[[Page S1176]]

groups, those who represent the great faiths of this country and 
others, particularly Democrats and some conscientious Republicans, have 
said this is wrong and we will try to do something about it. They have, 
over the period of time, raised the initiatives in some States. In six 
different States where this issue was on the ballot, they indicated 
they wanted the increase in the minimum wage. States have raised the 
minimum wage. But we have still not had this institution, the Senate, 
go on record and say to working families in this country that they 
ought to get a raise.
  Mr. President, $276 billion in tax breaks for corporations, $36 
billion in tax breaks for small businesses, increase in productivity of 
29 percent over the last 10 years, but do you think there is any 
increase in the minimum wage? No. Five days on the floor of the Senate 
we have considered immigration issues, as we have now. We have 
considered Social Security issues. We have considered health issues. We 
are considering education issues. We are considering additional kinds 
of tax breaks for wealthy corporations. But do we hear from the other 
side a willingness, as this side is willing at this moment, at 12 after 
5 today, on Thursday? I speak for all of our Democratic Members and say 
we are prepared to vote now, now, in 10 minutes, 15 minutes on this 
issue.
  But no, as we have been for the last five days--no, no, we have other 
amendments, Senator. We have other amendments to offer.
  We have now had amendments that have been worth over $200 billion. We 
have had amendments on education of $35 billion. We have had health 
savings amendments that will benefit those of average income of 
$133,000 costing $8 billion. We have had those kinds of amendments and 
we are looking at the Kyl amendment at $3 billion, but we still cannot 
get $2.10 over 2 years.
  What is the price, we ask the other side? What is the price you want 
from these working men and women? What cost? How much more do we have 
to give to the private sector and to business? How many billion dollars 
more are you asking, are you requiring? When does the greed stop, we 
ask the other side. That is the question and that is the issue, make no 
mistake about it. They have on the Republican side 70 more amendments--
70 more amendments. We have none. We are prepared to vote now. Seventy 
more amendments. Oh, yes. We want an increase in the minimum wage, we 
want this, we want that, but silence over there, or let's have some 
other kinds of amendments that have virtually nothing to do with this. 
Do you have such disdain for hard-working Americans that you want to 
pile all your amendments on this? Why don't you just hold your 
amendments for other pieces of legislation? Why this volume of 
amendments on just the issue to try to raise the minimum wage? What is 
it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it? Something. 
Something. Are you going to require us to have a cloture vote next 
week? I can see it already: Amendments that have already been filed 
that are going to be related in case we do get cloture to delay this 
even further.

  What is the price workers have to pay to get an increase? What is it 
about working men and women that you find so offensive that you won't 
permit even a vote, denying the Senate of the United States the 
opportunity to express ourselves? We don't want to hear any more from 
that side for the rest of this session about permitting or not 
permitting votes in here when you are denying on the most simple 
concept: an increase in the minimum wage. We don't want to hear any 
more about that. This is filibuster by delay and amendments. I have 
been around here long enough to know it when I see it and smell it. 
That is what it looks like, that is what it is, make no mistake about 
it. Make no mistake about it. And it just puzzles me. It really does.
  I don't know why it is so offensive to the other side. It certainly 
isn't the economic issues. We haven't heard those debated. We brought 
up the various charts about what has happened in States which have 
raised the minimum wage and how they have done better economically than 
States that have not raised it. We have shown where small businesses 
have done better in States where they have raised the minimum wage. We 
have also shown what has happened when we have an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  We show the increased poverty. There is a long story in the New York 
Times today:

       Childhood Poverty Is Found To Portend High Adult Costs. 
     Children who grow up poor cost the economy $500 billion a 
     year because they are less productive, earn less money, 
     commit more crimes, have more health-related expenses, 
     according to a study released on Wednesday.

  The study goes on. Here it is in the newspaper today, just what we 
have been talking about--the United States with the highest poverty 
rate for children of any industrial nation in the world.
  What has happened? The British raise their minimum wage, and they get 
two million children out of poverty. The Irish go to $10.80 an hour and 
reduce the poverty for children by 40 percent. You raise the minimum 
wage, and you get children out of poverty. Oh, no, no. ``Child Poverty 
Is Found To Portend High Adult Costs.'' What more information do we 
have to provide to the other side? What more do we have to do? What 
more do we have to do?
  Well, hopefully the American people are going to understand about who 
is delaying, who is opposing, who is using every kind of parliamentary 
tactic known to every possible Parliamentarian to delay action on the 
increase in the minimum wage. It lies right at the feet of the 
Republican leadership--right at the feet of the Republican leadership. 
Make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it. An amendment here, 
an amendment there, an amendment on Social Security, an amendment on 
immigration, and the chortling and the laughing as they go on about 
their business. Well, for those millions of Americans who are headed 
home tonight, after having worked long and hard, to face their children 
and hoping that at least, after the House of Representatives voted, 
with 80 Republicans who voted for an increase in the minimum wage, 
certainly the Senate of the United States isn't going to fail us, what 
do we tell them after 5 days? And $200 billion dollars more in tax cuts 
here, $35 billion more in tax cuts there, $8 billion more in tax cuts 
for HSAs. How many more billions of dollars do we have to give you, Mr. 
Republican? How many more dollars do we have to give you to get an 
increase in the minimum wage? It is shocking. It is disgraceful. But 
hopefully working families across this country are going to see it for 
what it is.
  We have an amendment that I will just say a word about at this time, 
but before I do, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator has 12 minutes 40 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would ask that the Chair tell me when I have 3 
minutes.


                                Iraq War

  I want to take the time--since I have been listening patiently here, 
our colleagues are going to listen to me read a rather dramatic article 
in the New York Times today, page A-10:

       In the battle for Baghdad, Haifa Street has changed hands 
     so often that it has taken on the feel of a no man's land, 
     the deadly space between opposing trenches. On Wednesday, as 
     American and Iraqi troops poured in, the street showed why it 
     is such a sensitive gauge of an urban conflict marked by 
     front lines that melt into confusion, enemies with no clear 
     identity and allies who disappear or do not show up at all.
       In a miniature version of the troop increase that the 
     United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers 
     and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to 
     dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been 
     battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned 
     high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units 
     who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings 
     did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the 
     job on their own.
       When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the 
     air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans 
     blew locks off doors with shotguns. As the morning wore on 
     and the troops came under fire from all directions, another 
     apparent flaw in this strategy became clear as empty 
     apartments became lairs for gunmen who flitted from window to 
     window and killed at least one American soldier, with a shot 
     to the head.
       Whether the gunfire was coming from Sunni or Shiite 
     insurgents or militia fighters or some of the Iraqi soldiers 
     who had disappeared into the Gotham-like cityscape, no one 
     could say.
       ``Who the hell is shooting at us?'' shouted Sgt. First 
     Class Marc Biletski, whose platoon was jammed into a small 
     room off an

[[Page S1177]]

     alley that was being swept by a sniper's bullets. ``Who's 
     shooting at us? Do we know who they are?''
       Just before the platoon tossed smoke bombs and sprinted 
     through the alley to a more secure position, Sergeant 
     Biletski had a moment to reflect on this spot, which the 
     United States has now fought to regain from a mysterious 
     enemy at least three times in the past two years.
       ``This place is a failure,'' Sergeant Biletski said. 
     ``Every time we come here, we have to come back.''
       He paused, then said, ``Well, maybe not a total failure,'' 
     since American troops have smashed opposition on Haifa Street 
     each time they have come in.
       With that, Sergeant Biletski ran through the billowing 
     yellow smoke and took up a new position.
       The Haifa Street operation, involving Bradley Fighting 
     Vehicles as well as the highly mobile Stryker vehicles, is 
     likely to cause plenty of reflection by the commanders in 
     charge of the Baghdad buildup of more than 20,000 troops. 
     Just how those extra troops will be used is not yet known, 
     but it is likely to mirror at least broadly the Haifa Street 
     strategy of working with Iraqi forces to take on unruly 
     groups from both sides of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide.
       The commander of the operation, Lt. Col. Avanulas Smiley of 
     the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Second Infantry 
     Division, said his forces were not interested in whether 
     opposition came from bullets fired by Sunnis or by Shiites. 
     He conceded that the cost of letting the Iraqi forces learn 
     on the job was to add to the risk involved in the operation.
       ``This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come 
     challenges and risks,'' Colonel Smiley said. ``It can be 
     organized chaos.''
       The American units in the operation began moving up Haifa 
     Street from the south by 2 a.m. on Wednesday. A platoon of B 
     Company in the Stryker Brigade secured the roof of a high 
     rise, where an Eminen poster was stuck on the wall of what 
     appeared to be an Iraqi teenager's room on the top floor. But 
     in a pattern that would be repeated again and again in a 
     series of buildings, there was no one in the apartment.
       Many of the Iraqi units that showed up late never seemed to 
     take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, breaking 
     dishes and rifling through personal CD collections in the 
     apartments. Eventually the Americans realized that the Iraqis 
     were searching no more than half of the apartments; at one 
     point the Iraqis completely disappeared, leaving the American 
     unit working with them flabbergasted.
       ``Where did they go?'' yelled Sgt. Jeri A. Gillett. Another 
     soldier suggested, ``I say we just let them go and we do this 
     ourselves.''
       Then the gunfire began. It would come from high rises 
     across the street, from behind trash piles and sandbags in 
     alleys and from so many other directions that the soldiers 
     began to worry that the Iraqi soldiers were firing at them. 
     Mortars started dropping from across the Tigris River, to the 
     east, in the direction of a Shiite slum.
       The only thing that was clear was that no one knew who the 
     enemy was. ``The thing is, we wear uniforms--they don't,'' 
     said Specialist Terry Wilson.
       At one point the Americans were forced to jog alongside the 
     Strykers on Haifa Street, sheltering themselves as best they 
     could from the gunfire. The Americans finally found the 
     Iraqis and ended up accompanying them into an extremely 
     dangerous and exposed warren of low-slung hovels behind the 
     high rises as gunfire rained down.
       American officers tried to persuade the Iraqi soldiers to 
     leave the slum area for better cover, but the Iraqis refused 
     to risk crossing a lane that was being raked by machine-gun 
     fire. ``It's their show,'' said Lt. David Stroud, adding that 
     the Americans have orders to defer to the Iraqis in cases 
     like this.
       In this surreal setting, about 20 American soldiers were 
     forced at one point to pull themselves one by one up a canted 
     tin roof by a dangling rubber hose and then shimmy along a 
     ledge to another hut. The soldiers were stunned when a small 
     child suddenly walked out of a darkened doorway and an old 
     man started wheezing and crying somewhere inside.
       Ultimately the group made it back to the high rises and 
     escaped the sniper in the alley by throwing out the smoke 
     bombs and sprinting to safety. Even though two Iraqis were 
     struck by gunfire, many of the rest could not stop shouting 
     and guffawing with amusement as they ran through the smoke.
       One Iraqi soldier in the alley pointed his rifle at an 
     American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a 
     click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed at 
     his joke.

  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 
50 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this report in the New York Times is the 
reason our people are becoming angrier by the day as the war rages on. 
They expect Congress to be an effective restraint on the President and 
his misuse of the war power. Opposition to the escalation of the Iraq 
war is becoming louder. How much clearer does the opposition have to be 
before the President finally listens and responds to the voices of the 
American people, the generals, and a bipartisan majority of Congress?
  General Abizaid doesn't support this escalation. He told the Senate 
Armed Services Committee:

       More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, 
     from taking more responsibility for their own future.

  GEN James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, doesn't support it. 
He said:

       We do not believe just adding numbers for the sake of 
     adding numbers--just thickening the mix--is necessarily the 
     way to go.

  Secretary Powell said that he is not ``persuaded that another surge 
of troops in Baghdad for the purpose of suppressing this communitarian 
violence, this civil war, will work.''
  GEN Barry McCaffrey, former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, 
thinks it won't work. He said:

       Putting another 20,000 to 30,000 troops, particularly in 
     urban combat in a city of 7 million Arabs of Baghdad, is a 
     fool's errand. It is sticking your finger in the water. When 
     you pull your finger out, its presence will not have made a 
     difference.

  General Hoar, former head of CENTCOM, told the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee last week:

       The addition of 21,000 troops is too little and too late. 
     This is still not enough to quell the violence, and without 
     major changes in the command and control of forces within 
     Baghdad, the current set-up for shared control is 
     unsatisfactory.

  Passage of the bipartisan resolution approved yesterday by the 
Foreign Relations Committee is an important statement about the need 
for a different course in Iraq, and I will support it. But we cannot 
stop there, especially if the President continues to unilaterally 
impose his failing policy on an America that has already rejected it. 
Congress has a constitutional duty to stop the President from sending 
more of our sons and daughters into this civil war. That is why I have 
introduced legislation that would require the President to get the 
authority he needs from Congress before moving forward with a further 
escalation in Iraq, and I intend to seek a vote on it.
  This is a debate about what is best for our troops and our national 
security. Our forces have served with great valor. They have done 
everything they have been asked to do. They have served in Iraq for 
longer than 4 years, longer than World War II. They have done 
everything they have been asked to do. They have won every battle they 
have been in, and they have served with great courage and great valor. 
We owe them. We owe their bravery, their courage, their dedication, and 
their commitment to the United States of America a better and fairer 
policy that will bring them safely home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on the matter directly before the Senate, 
the Sessions amendment, the amendment bars employers from receiving 
Government contracts if they have violated the immigration laws that 
prohibit the hiring of illegal workers. There is no judicial review, 
but the Attorney General can waive the prohibition or limit the scope 
if it is necessary to the national defense or in the interests of 
national security. An exemption from the penalty is provided to 
employers participating in the basic pilot program, the current 
employer verification system.
  This amendment bars employers from receiving Government contracts if 
they violate the immigration laws that prohibit the hiring of illegal 
workers. I am surprised that is not already the law. We certainly 
should bar them from receiving lucrative Government contracts and, 
therefore, I will support this amendment.
  I do have concerns, however, about continuing to pass piecemeal 
enforcement-only measures without enacting a comprehensive reform 
program, and I would express reservations about others.
  We will have the opportunity in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of 
which I happen to be the chairman of the immigration subcommittee at 
this time, to consider the immigration bill. We welcome the full 
opportunity to debate and discuss those issues in the subcommittee, the 
full committee, and in the Senate. I will support this amendment and 
withhold the remainder of my time.

[[Page S1178]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we want higher wages for American 
workers. This is important. I would like to see them receive $15, $20, 
$30 an hour, not $7 an hour. I would like to create economic forces to 
work so the average worker can benefit from that without some sort of 
Government wage control. I have voted for minimum wage increases.
  We are going to move this bill forward, as I understand it, with a 
package of relief provisions for small businesses, and it will be 
passed. But we are not through yet with some relevant, important 
amendments. Is that what my colleagues object to? They certainly did 
not object to it when the Republicans were moving bills through the 
Senate last year or the year before. Senator Kennedy can file a stack 
of amendments 2 feet thick if he desires. There is nothing wrong with 
offering some amendments, and we will move forward.
  I will say a couple of things about it. We had amendments in the 
Senate almost every year in recent years--3, 4, 5 years--that would 
have raised the minimum wage and would have provided relief for small 
business. But the Democratic leadership, to make a political point, 
preferred not to have that and blocked that provision, voting only for 
their pure increase of the minimum wage.
  So we are at this standoff that I think is particularly silly in 
light of the fact now that the bill we are about to pass, and I suggest 
will pass, is going to have the same small business relief provisions 
in it that could have been passed last time, last year, or before.
  I don't appreciate the suggestion that we are here to protect 
corrupt, greedy, business people. My amendment targets greedy 
contractors, contractors who go out with Federal taxpayer money, hire 
people here illegally instead of hiring Americans to do work for the 
U.S. taxpayers. Let's crack down on them. I am glad the Senator 
supports that. However, I am disappointed that his leadership opposed a 
far more significant amendment that would have raised the minuscule 
$250 fine on big, greedy businesses that hire illegal workers. Why 
would they object to that when, in hiring those numbers by the tens or 
hundreds of thousands, we pull down the wages of American citizens? Why 
would we do that? Who is greedy now? What is wrong with creating a 
lawful system? Why don't we take care of our American workers?
  Just in the last week there was an article on the front page of the 
Wall Street Journal about a chicken plant in Georgia. They raided that 
plant and nearly three-fourths of the workers disappeared. Some were 
arrested for being there illegally. The company went out and ran ads in 
the paper to say they were having new wage increases at the chicken 
plant. They were paying more than $1 an hour more. They sent buses to 
nearby towns to see if people wanted free rides to work. They provided 
dormitories for those who wanted to stay in the dormitory. They went 
through unemployment agencies in Georgia. They have already hired 200 
workers, mostly African-American citizens, for those jobs. Another 200 
applications were pending. Don't tell me that if we have a lawful 
system of immigration it won't improve significantly the wages of 
American workers.
  I suggest my colleague from Massachusetts introduce himself to 
Professor Borjas at Harvard who has written a book on it. He says it 
has brought down the wages of low-income workers by as much as 8 
percent, which is $100 per month, or $1,200 per year.
  I submit these amendments are not irrelevant to our discussion. I 
note that small businesses do not all get rich. I met the nicest young 
man who opened a restaurant in Mobile, AL. He was working 90-hour weeks 
for months. He didn't know whether he was going to make it. He was not 
making a minimum wage, not in the weeks he started his business. He 
turned it around. Now he works 70-hour weeks and his business seems to 
be doing well. I hope he makes a lot of money. But he has some 
legitimate concerns for those small businesses to help him be 
successful. If he failed, a lot of people would not have had jobs.
  We are coming to the conclusion of the time in which we will vote. 
This is a good amendment. We ought not have corporations or businesses 
getting Government contracts and going out and hiring people who are 
illegal to make an extra buck. It is not right. We have a system in 
place that should be in place for every business in America. It is a 
system that we in the Senate follow, the House of Representatives 
follows, and every Government agency in America follows. But you can 
hire somebody; you go online and you verify their employment legality. 
It works very well. If the employer does that, they will not be subject 
to penalty under this act.
  We need to take some real steps in that regard. I believe we can do 
so. We will need to do more of it if we want to protect our workers. 
One way not to protect the salaries of workers would be to pass the 
bill that was before the Senate that came out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee last year, the Kennedy-McCain bill, that would have added as 
many as five times the number of people into this country legally as 
currently are allowed. As it finally left the Senate, it would have 
increased by three times the number of people legally in this country. 
That would have a devastating impact on low-income workers in America. 
We cannot assimilate that many people that rapidly.

  When we talk about comprehensive reform, let's talk about that. Let's 
see if we can't do it. Let's do it in a way that protects the 
livelihoods of the least in our Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent following the 
vote with respect to Sessions amendment No. 148, the Senate resume 
consideration of Kyl amendment No. 205; there be 10 minutes equally 
divided between Senator Kyl and Senator Baucus prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendment, with no second-degree amendment in order 
prior to the vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an 
amendment I have been waiting for some time to try and bring up. I have 
a commitment from 6 o'clock to about 6:45.
  My inquiry is, do the managers of this amendment plan on being around 
here later this evening so I can have an opportunity to offer that 
amendment or can I have an opportunity Friday when we come in to bring 
up my amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is my understanding we are going to be on this bill 
as far as the eye can see. That is part of my problem on it.
  Is the Senator's amendment at the desk?
  Mr. ALLARD. It is at the desk. I am willing to do it tomorrow morning 
if I could just get some time set aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have this request at this particular time. We would be 
glad to look at the amendment. I am not familiar with the amendment 
right now. There are a number of others who have asked to be heard. I 
have been here all day, as well. We are trying to process these 
amendments. We have other amendments, but we will do the best we can. I 
plan on being around tomorrow. I don't know if we will be on this bill. 
We are having the debate on General Patraeus tomorrow. I plan to be 
here Monday. I plan to be here Tuesday.
  Mr. ALLARD. As long as I have an opportunity to bring up my 
amendment, I would like that opportunity at some point.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator can call it up after the vote. There is no 
problem. Whether we will dispose of it is a different issue.
  Mr. ALLARD. With the hope that we could at least get it in the queue?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Certainly.
  Mr. ALLARD. That would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request of the Senator from Massachusetts?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the hour has arrived and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S1179]]

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and 
the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     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
     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
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Coburn
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Schumer
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 148) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 205

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 10 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Kyl amendment No. 205. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in 10 minutes we will have a vote on an 
amendment which I offered earlier that merely extends the small 
business Tax Code provisions that came out of the Finance Committee, 
which were adopted unanimously, from March 31 of next year through 
December 31. Everybody recognized that if we could afford to do it, we 
wanted to extend them as long as we could, but the funds were there 
simply to extend it through March 31. No small business can plan on 
that short of a timeframe. So I think everybody would agree it is good 
policy.
  In the committee, we agreed it was important to extend these 
benefits. These are primarily the writeoff periods for small business 
leasehold improvements, restaurants, and so on. Restaurants are about 
60 percent of the people who will be receiving the benefits of the 
minimum wage increase and, therefore, these tax benefits clearly are 
important to them.
  It is totally paid for. I hope my colleagues will be willing to 
extend these provisions from March 31 of next year through December 31 
of next year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield to Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am committed to the core package that 
we have a bipartisan agreement for, but within the committee we have 
had an understanding that if there is an add-on and if it is revenue 
neutral, they would be considered. So we are improving this package, 
the small business portions of it that nobody has any dispute ought to 
be done. There is some dispute over the offset. I wish to concentrate 
on that offset. It is fully offset. It comes from a proposal that comes 
from the Joint Committee on Taxation, not from the Republican side or 
the Democratic side but a nonpartisan side, that there is an inequity 
in provisions for payment. For instance, if you work for Principal 
Financial in Des Moines and they pay for your college, it is going to 
be taxed, but if you work for a university and you send your kids to 
college, it is tax free. So Joint Tax sees that as an inequity. We use 
that as a good offset. It is a good offset. I believe Senator Kyl has 
worked hard to develop an amendment that will make the small business 
depreciation much better and more meaningful. I hope Members will 
support Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have the highest regard for the Senator 
from Arizona, as well as my very good friend from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley. They neglected to tell you about the pay-for. First of all, 
this amendment is moving in the right direction to extend the leasehold 
improvement. However, in the committee, we tried to get a balanced 
package that also extends provisions for WOTC and other provisions to 
get it balanced. This amendment addresses one side of the equation. It 
is not balanced because it doesn't extend for the other side of the 
equation, which is the work opportunity tax credit. The primary problem 
I have with this amendment is the pay-for.
  Essentially this amendment, offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
prevents, to a large degree, parents trying to get a good education for 
their kids. These are parents who work for various educational 
institutions. It could be kindergarten, high school. It could be a 
college. Under current law, a lot of people--janitors, cafeteria 
workers--take a cut in pay to work for institutions, knowing they will 
get a break in their tuition. This amendment takes that away. This 
amendment takes away a tax break for that person who has been working 
8, 10, 15 years at an institution, knowing that his or her child, who 
may be a junior or sophomore in college, is there to get a good 
education. This amendment takes that incentive away. It cuts people off 
midstream. Again, these are not the children of professors. They tend 
to be the children of people who work, the plumbers who work at college 
universities, and so forth.
  This applies to all private education. It could be parochial, 
nonparochial. We all know examples of parents who sacrifice to get 
their kids through school. This amendment takes away that break that 
those parents are now getting.
  It is not a good thing. Earlier today, we were talking about ways to 
expand tax credits and incentives for people so they can get an 
education. This amendment takes away incentives for people to get a 
good education. It is the wrong amendment. The pay-for is not correct. 
We should, therefore, not agree to the amendment. At the appropriate 
time, I will move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, please understand that one of the things my 
friend from Montana said is not correct. We are not taking away the 
$5,000 benefit that exists for everybody who provides for tuition to be 
tax free. That remains. We are not touching that. All we are saying is 
that it ought to be the same for the son or daughter of a college 
professor as the son or daughter of the manager of the pizza shop. The 
only one who gets the tuition tax break that is tax free is the son or 
daughter of the college professor. But if you work for a small business 
and your boss decides to send your child to school, pay the tuition for 
that child, you could still get that tuition, but you have to pay the 
tax consequences of that; that is a taxable benefit. There should be no 
differentiation between working for a small business or a big business, 
for that matter, or being the son or daughter of a college professor.
  That is what the bipartisan Joint Tax Committee said. This is totally 
unfair. It is part of the closing of the tax gap because of the 
unfairness between one small group of our society and everybody else. 
All this does is equalize the tax treatment of the employer providing 
the tuition free for the student. That pays for what everyone 
recognizes is a very important extension of the small business 
provisions of the Finance Committee from March 31 of next year through 
December 31 of next year.
  I urge Members to vote against the motion to table the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is not an omnibus tax bill, it is 
long overdue legislation to increase the minimum wage. It is not an 
opportunity for Members to present their tax cut

[[Page S1180]]

wish list. It is Congress' opportunity to finally right the wrong of 
denying millions of hard working minimum wage workers a raise for 10 
years.
  Since the minimum wage was last increased 10 years ago, Congress has 
passed $276 billion dollars in corporate tax breaks. In addition, 
Congress has cut taxes for individuals by more than a trillion dollars, 
with most of the benefits going to the wealthiest taxpayers.
  Unfortunately, for some of our Republican colleagues, there never are 
enough tax breaks for the wealthy. They have filed more than twenty 
five amendments proposing new or expanded tax cuts. Many of them would 
cost billions of dollars.
  The Republicans are attempting to hold the minimum wage increase 
hostage to their insatiable desire for more and larger tax cuts. It is 
a shameless strategy.
  The Kyl amendment seeks to extend the period of time when businesses 
can receive accelerated depreciation for leasehold restaurant and 
retail space improvements. The original amendment contained no offset. 
It would have cost $3 billion dollars.
  After being told by Democratic leaders that we would oppose any tax 
breaks that weren't paid for, Senator Kyl changed his amendment to 
include an offset.
  The problem is that the tax benefit he proposes to eliminate is much 
more worthy than the tax break he is seeking to create. He is proposing 
to eliminate a long-standing tax provision that allows employees of 
educational institutions to receive free tuition for their children. He 
wants to tax that free tuition. This would be a huge tax increase for 
hundreds of thousands of families with very modest incomes. They are 
teachers, food service workers, and maintenance personnel at colleges 
and schools across America. Many of them have worked for years in jobs 
with lower wages than they could have earned elsewhere in order to 
receive these educational opportunities for their children. Right now 
more than 150,000 students are attending college because of these 
benefits.
  More than one-fifth of all graduate students in our country receive 
employer benefits from the schools they attend, including tuition 
reduction. Senator Kyl's amendment would make it more difficult for 
these students to remain in school as well.
  To change existing law and suddenly make that free tuition taxable 
will mean that many of these people can not afford to take advantage of 
the free tuition. That would be grossly unfair. It would be eliminating 
a very legitimate pro-education tax benefit to fund yet another 
business tax break for the same wealthy interests that have already 
received so much.
  At a time when our Nation's competitiveness and the global economy 
depends on our ability to continue producing high skilled workers, 
making it more difficult for students to obtain an education just 
doesn't make sense.
  Senator Kyl's amendment would have an ironic result. It would mean 
that thousands of men and women, who toil at the most difficult jobs at 
our nation's colleges, will have no hope of seeing their children walk 
through those college gates themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 1 minute 49 
seconds. The Senator from Arizona has 4 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will be brief.
  The argument by the Senator from Arizona is not apt. It is a false 
analogy. Why? Because we are talking in the main about parents who 
currently are working, who are currently relying upon the current tax 
provisions. We are not talking about those who may or may not be 
considering going to that institution. We are talking about those 
currently working there. This will be taken away from them. Some of 
these people are working hard. They are taking a big cut in pay to work 
at an educational institution so their kids get educated. We are 
saying: take it away. You have been working there.
  We are leaving that family high and dry. I think it is the wrong 
thing to do.
  There is a proper time to deal with these provisions. This is not the 
time. It is a bad amendment anyway. Let's figure out ways to give 
benefits for kids to go to school, not to take them away.
  I yield back my time, move to table the amendment, and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
The Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allard
     Boxer
     Coburn
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Schumer
     Stevens
     Thomas
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                 Amendment No. 169 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 169.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Allard, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 169 to amendment No. 100.

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

 (Purpose: To prevent identity theft by allowing the sharing of social 
  security data among government agencies for immigration enforcement 
                               purposes)

       At the end, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. SHARING OF SOCIAL SECURITY DATA FOR IMMIGRATION 
                   ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.

       (a) Social Security Account Numbers.--Section 264(f) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1304(f)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including 
     section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Labor, and 
     the Attorney General are authorized to require any individual 
     to provide his or her own social security account number for 
     purposes of inclusion in any record of the individual 
     maintained by either such Secretary or the Attorney General, 
     or of inclusion in any application, document, or form 
     provided under or required by the immigration laws.''.
       (b) Exchange of Information.--Section 290(c) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1360(c)) is amended 
     by striking

[[Page S1181]]

     paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
     if earnings are reported on or after January 1, 1997, to the 
     Social Security Administration on a social security account 
     number issued to an alien not authorized to work in the 
     United States, the Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with information 
     regarding the name, date of birth, and address of the alien, 
     the name and address of the person reporting the earnings, 
     and the amount of the earnings.
       ``(B) The information described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be provided in an electronic form agreed upon by the 
     Commissioner and the Secretary.
       ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), if a social security account number was used with 
     multiple names, the Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     provide the Secretary of Homeland Security with information 
     regarding the name, date of birth, and address of each 
     individual who used that social security account number, and 
     the name and address of the person reporting the earnings for 
     an individual who used that social security account number.
       ``(B) The information described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be provided in an electronic form agreed upon by the 
     Commissioner and the Secretary for the sole purpose of 
     enforcing the immigration laws.
       ``(C) The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner, 
     may limit or modify the requirements of this paragraph, as 
     appropriate, to identify the cases posing the highest 
     possibility of fraudulent use of social security account 
     numbers related to violation of the immigration laws.
       ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), if more than one person reports earnings for an 
     individual during a single tax year, the Commissioner of 
     Social Security shall provide the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security information regarding the name, date of birth, and 
     address of the individual, and the name and address of the 
     each person reporting earnings for that individual.
       ``(B) The information described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     be provided in an electronic form agreed upon by the 
     Commissioner and the Secretary for the sole purpose of 
     enforcing the immigration laws.
       ``(C) The Secretary, in consultation with the Commissioner, 
     may limit or modify the requirements of this paragraph, as 
     appropriate, to identify the cases posing the highest 
     possibility of fraudulent use of social security account 
     numbers related to violation of the immigration laws.
       ``(5)(A) The Commissioner of Social Security shall perform, 
     at the request to the Secretary of Homeland Security, any 
     search or manipulation of records held by the Commissioner if 
     the Secretary certifies that the purpose of the search or 
     manipulation is to obtain information that is likely to 
     assist in identifying individuals (and their employers) who 
     are using false names or social security numbers, who are 
     sharing a single valid name and social security number among 
     multiple individuals, who are using the social security 
     number of a person who is deceased, too young to work, or not 
     authorized to work, or who are otherwise engaged in a 
     violation of the immigration laws. The Commissioner shall 
     provide the results of such search or manipulation to the 
     Secretary, notwithstanding any other provision law (including 
     section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
       ``(B) The Secretary shall transfer to the Commissioner the 
     funds necessary to cover the costs directly incurred by the 
     Commissioner in carrying out each search or manipulation 
     requested by the Secretary under subparagraph (A).''.
       (c) False Claims of Citizenship by Nationals of the United 
     States.--Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or national'' after ``citizen''.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have introduced a couple of amendments. 
The reason I have done so is because I think we need to take this 
opportunity to address more than just minimum wage.
  My good friend from Massachusetts talked a lot about the working men 
and women of this country, but minimum wage does not address all the 
working men and women in this country. We need to broaden this 
legislation so we talk about those who are in business for themselves, 
the small businesspeople. Many times the working men and women of this 
country, when they start their business, which I have had a wonderful 
opportunity to do, have to save their money because they have to count 
on not making much money their first 2 or 3 years, if they make any at 
all. Then, after 3 years, maybe, if you do a good job and hit the 
market right, your business will survive. However, a lot of small 
businesspeople fail. So we need to understand, when we talk about the 
working American men and women of this country, we need to make sure we 
have legislation that is all inclusive. We need to keep all of them in 
mind when we work on this particular legislation. That is why so many 
of us believe this legislation needs to deal with more than just 
minimum wage. It needs to deal with some regulatory and tax relief for 
small businesspeople because they are working men and women in this 
country, also.
  I also rise today to ask the Members of the Senate to support my 
amendment, No. 169 to the pending minimum wage bill. It cuts at the 
heart of a rampant problem in this country; that is, identity theft. A 
resolution of this problem has the potential to help small business. On 
Monday, a bipartisan group of Senators and I met with Secretary 
Chertoff on this issue. Secretary Chertoff explained that, under 
current law, Government agencies are prevented from sharing information 
with one another that, if shared, could expose cases of identity theft.

  My amendment tears down the wall that prevents the sharing of 
existing information among Government agencies. It permits the 
Commissioner of Social Security to share information with the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, where such information is likely to assist in 
discovering identity theft, Social Security number misuse or violations 
of immigration law. This is going to help small businesses such as 
construction businesses, farmers, ranchers, drywall businesses, 
horticulture and landscape companies and many more.
  Specifically, this amendment requires the Commissioner to inform the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, upon discovery of a Social Security 
account number being used with multiple names, or where an individual 
has more than one person reporting earnings for him or her during a 
single tax year. It seems logical that we would already be doing this, 
but we are not.
  In the meantime, identity theft is plaguing innocent victims all 
across the country. We were reminded of the pervasiveness of this 
problem by the recent raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement of 
six Swift and Company meat-packing plants across the country on 
December 12, 2006. In total, agents apprehended 1,282 illegal alien 
workers on administrative immigration violations. Of these, 65 have 
also been charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or 
other violations.
  Unfortunately, for the victims--that is the victims of identity 
theft--by the time the identity theft is discovered, the damage has 
already been done. Colorado is ranked fifth in the Nation for identity 
theft, and the citizens of my State of Colorado are no stranger to 
identity theft.
  For instance, an 84-year-old Grand Junction woman was deemed 
ineligible for Federal housing assistance because her Social Security 
number was being used at a variety of jobs in Denver, making her income 
too high to qualify because all these individuals had been using her 
I.D. number and it was coming in to Social Security, and when they 
checked on her income, it was recorded much higher than what she was 
receiving. If this had been discovered earlier, before she had applied 
for her housing grants, there would have been fewer victims.
  Another example is a 10-year-old child in Douglas County who had his 
identity stolen. His Social Security number was being used at 17 
different jobs. Now, if this had been discovered earlier, again, we 
would have had fewer victims.
  Others get stuck with big tax bills for wages they never earned. 
Clearly, theft is an issue that affects people of all ages and walks of 
life, particularly those working for minimum wage who may struggle to 
pay the cost of getting their identity back after it has been stolen. 
Again, if these cases could have been discovered earlier, then there 
would have been fewer victims.
  Yet when the Social Security Administration has reason to believe 
that a Social Security number is being used fraudulently, they are 
prevented from sharing it with the Department of Homeland Security. 
Withholding this information effectively enables thieves to continue to 
perpetrate the crime of identity theft against innocent victims.
  Pilot programs such as what was being used at Swift and Company are 
managed through the Department of Homeland Security. What they say to

[[Page S1182]]

the employer is: We will help you verify that the employee's social 
security number is legitimate and it matches the name provided. 
However, Secretary Chertoff explained the limitations of the program. 
He said, if two people are using the same Social Security number at the 
same time, he can't get the information to recognize it. So when a 
number comes in to his agency when he is working with these pilot 
programs, all he can assure is that the name goes with the Social 
Security number. But he can't get the information out of the Social 
Security Administration as to whether two people are using the same 
number.
  In some cases, as in the child I mentioned, the same social security 
number is being used in as many as 17 different jobs at once. We have 
had thousands of cases in Colorado where this has happened, where the 
victim didn't realize that somebody else was using their Social 
Security number until they were contacted by the Internal Revenue 
Service and told that they weren't reporting all their income, and they 
discovered that somebody else was using it at their place of 
employment.
  So by simply sharing this information, cases of identity theft could 
be discovered much sooner. Victims of identity theft deserve to have 
this information acted on, and my amendment enables this.
  We have a choice. We can side with the victims or side with the 
thieves. I urge my colleagues to take the side of the victims and enact 
this commonsense reform.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert for the Record an 
article in the Rocky Mountain News entitled ``Owens Wants Action on ID 
Theft.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Rocky Mountain News, July 6, 2006]

                     Owens Wants Action on ID Theft

                           (By David Montero)

       Gov. Bill Owens called upon the legislature Wednesday to 
     require employers to be more diligent when verifying the 
     validity of Social Security numbers of those they hire.
       On the eve of the legislature's special session to address 
     illegal immigration, Owens rattled off a list of identity-
     theft transgressions in Colorado and said the current $50 
     fine levied against businesses who submit false Social 
     Security numbers isn't enough of a deterrent.
       ``We're going to seek additional penalty from the 
     legislature so that we can actually make this more than a 
     cost of doing business,'' he said.
       It costs the state more than $50 to levy the fine and 
     prosecute the businesses submitting invalid Social Security 
     numbers, he said.
       Standing next to Rick Grice, executive director of the 
     Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Owens said that 
     the numbers related to identity theft in the state are 
     startling.
       According to Grice's statistics, one Social Security number 
     alone was reported by 57 different employers. Another Social 
     Security number was found to be on the rolls of 50 different 
     businesses.
       During the first quarter of 2006, 368 Social Security 
     numbers were filed more than six times by 2,828 employers, 
     according to data combed over by Grice's department. Some 
     numbers were obviously phony.
       ``The false numbers jumped off the pages of the reports by 
     showing such numbers as 333-33-3333 and 444-4--well, you get 
     the picture,'' Grice said.
       Grice said he didn't know what kind of fine would be useful 
     as a deterrent to employers submitting false Social Security 
     numbers to the Labor Department, but that he suspects any new 
     penalty would begin with a warning to the employer to check 
     all workers' identification.
       According to data provided by the governor's office, 
     Colorado ranked fifth in the nation in identity-theft cases 
     per 100,000 people.
       Owens provided examples of identity theft victims--
     including an 84-year-old woman in Grand Junction who was 
     deemed ineligible for federal housing assistance because her 
     Social Security number was being used in Denver at a variety 
     of jobs, making her income too high to qualify for the 
     housing.
       He also said a 10-year-old boy in Douglas County had his 
     Social Security number used at 17 different jobs.
       Owens, who recently signed legislation criminalizing 
     identity theft and authorizing the formation of the Identity 
     Theft Commission, suggested that employers use a federal 
     basic pilot program run by the Social Security Administration 
     and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, saying it is 
     a ``good first step,'' despite some flaws in the system.
       Donnah Moody, vice president of government affairs at the 
     Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, said that the 
     pilot program--designed for employers to verify the legality 
     of Social Security numbers--isn't ready yet.

  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.


                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I was unfortunately delayed from voting 
on the DeMint amendment No. 158--rollcall vote No. 25. For the record, 
I would have voted no on the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________