[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20647-20649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF AMERICA'S WORKING FAMILIES

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate our leader and thank him 
for an excellent address this afternoon. I also thank my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, who has been such a 
leader on the issue of prescription drugs. The leader was much too 
self-assuming when he failed to take credit for the fact that this was 
the first time the Senate has ever debated a prescription drug program, 
and it was done so because we had a Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, who 
insisted we call up this legislation.
  I heard earlier today: We did not have a prescription drug bill 
because the Finance Committee could not do one. For 5 of the last 6 
years, the Republicans have been in charge of the Senate, and when they 
were in charge, we never had a prescription drug bill. The American 
people ought to understand that. Before one cries crocodile tears at 
the pleading of my friend from Oklahoma, the fact is the Senate never 
considered a bill because the Finance Committee could not complete a 
bill, and the Democratic leader brought a bill to the floor of the 
Senate.
  We passed a good bill, not the bill I would have liked to have seen, 
a program that would have been built upon the Medicare system. I 
thought we had guaranteed that in 1965 when we committed to the seniors 
of this country: Play by the rules and pay into the Medicare system, 
and your health care needs are going to be attended to. We did not say 
``with the exception of prescription drugs.''
  That is what has happened, Mr. President. Every day we fail our 
seniors, we break that commitment and pledge to them. The Republicans 
had 5 years to report out a bill, and they failed to do so. Thank you, 
Tom Daschle, and thank you, Debbie Stabenow, for standing up, and thank 
you for the bipartisan effort we had to support a program that would 
have done something about lowering the cost of prescription drugs and, 
as the Senator from Michigan has pointed out, as well as our leader, 
that is being held hostage by the Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives.
  Make no mistake about it, the Democrats happen to be on the side of 
seniors. We were on their side in the early 1960s when we fought for 
Medicare. If our Republican friends are against the Medicare Program, 
why don't they just come out and say it? They at least used to have the 
courage to do so. They do not now. They just say they differ with it or 
there is some other procedure or failure of some committee meeting. 
They used to at least have the courage to say they oppose it. They do 
not say that anymore. They try to give some other excuse. We are 
strongly committed, as the Senator from Michigan

[[Page 20648]]

and the Senator from South Dakota have pointed out.
  Mr. President, in the time I have remaining, I wish to highlight 
three very important areas, and these are areas which our leader, the 
Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, has mentioned, but I want to 
review them one more time.
  More than 8 million Americans are competing for just over 3 million 
jobs. Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma does not believe we have an 
economic crisis, but he can travel with me through many of the New 
England States, including my State of Massachusetts, where we have the 
highest unemployment of any of the New England States. Talk to families 
there who, if they have not lost a job, they know members of a family 
who have or they know of a neighbor who has, and they have friends down 
the street who are seeing foreclosures on homes. This is the highest 
rate of foreclosures since the Depression, and we sit around in the 
Senate and say, We do not have an economic crisis?
  We have double-digit inflation in health care, and we still say: It 
is not robbing the pockets of working families. We see the tuition of 
our great universities increasing by more than three times the rate of 
inflation. No, no, that is not really our fault.
  Why is it all those factors are coming in to place now under a 
Republican administration? Why? It still has not been answered. We are 
not just saying why, as the leader, Tom Daschle, has pointed out, we 
are making recommendations and suggestions trying to do something about 
it.
  I heard this comment about how the Republicans are against minimum 
wage. I know they are. I know they have opposed it. They have opposed 
it since I have been in the Senate, and they opposed it before I came 
to the Senate.
  This is basically an issue of dignity of men and women who work hard 
cleaning the buildings of this country, working as teachers' aides, 
working in nursing homes--men and women of dignity. They take the tough 
jobs. Perhaps they can be easily dismissed by Members in the Senate, 
but we take them seriously.
  It is an issue involving women because the majority of the minimum 
wage recipients are women. It is a women's issue. It is the children 
because most of the women have children. How are those children going 
to grow up?
  Talk about family values. What do we have when there is a family who 
needs a minimum wage increase and is working two jobs? How much time do 
they have to spend with their children? We hear a great deal about 
family values. The minimum wage is a family value issue, and it is a 
fairness issue.
  We have raised our salaries four times in the Senate in the last six 
years. The last pay increase was by $4,900. We have raised our salaries 
four times since we voted for an increase in the minimum wage. That is 
not acceptable. Maybe it is acceptable to some. Maybe there are people 
who can find excuses and say: What about the mom-and-pop store that is 
not going to be able to pay it?
  We have dealt with those issues and those challenges. There are 
exclusions for the smaller mom-and-pop stores from the coverage, and 
there are exclusions for a variety of other entities where we get the 
same stories.
  At least the Democrats are prepared to vote for an increase for the 
hard-working, neediest people in this society. As a result of the 
economic slowdown, there is an increase in the working poor. We want to 
do something about it. We are not giving excuses. We are fighting for 
those people. We are fighting to make sure they are going to be 
eligible for the unemployment insurance.
  There are 3.2 million jobs and 8 million Americans unemployed. There 
are more Americans unemployed who are looking for fewer jobs. That is a 
phenomenon entirely different from our recent economic history.
  Going back to the last serious recession we had in this country, look 
at the number of Americans, 1.4 million, who are out of benefits, and 
now in 2002 there are 2.2 million out of benefits, which is a 
continuation of the earlier point.
  We have asked for and we have tried to get the extension of 
unemployment compensation that can make some difference, and we are 
going to continue to fight to do it. If we can get an increase in the 
minimum wage, we are prepared to do that as well.
  The other issue we want to address is the issue we have in terms of 
pension reforms. We are not just satisfied with the House bill that is 
going to permit the various financial institutions to give the workers 
their information and make the decisions about how they are going to 
invest their pensions. Imagine that. Talk about putting the fox in the 
chicken coop. That is what the House bill does.
  In the last hour, we heard somebody in this Chamber say: Let's pass 
that House bill. That will solve our problem in terms of the pensions. 
We are going to let the financial institutions that have a direct 
financial interest give the advice to the workers about how to do that.
  Well, we hope we have learned something. We certainly have learned 
something over on this side. But that is basically the Boehner bill. He 
is a good friend. We worked with him on the education bill, but he is 
wrong about this.
  Why is it important? It is important because we have seen the 
workers' retirement savings wiped out. There has been over $1 billion 
lost, but the executives have cashed out at $1 billion in gains. Look 
at what has happened to these companies. We are asked why we are 
fighting to get something meaningful done. The heads of these companies 
and corporations, such as the Enrons--Mr. Lay is going to receive a 
pension that is worth half a million dollars a year for life, and 
Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom will receive $1.5 million a year for life, 
and the list goes on. They have been taken care of, but the workers 
have not.
  We want to do something meaningful. We want to do something on 
unemployment compensation. We have to do something on minimum wage. We 
have to do something to protect America's workers in terms of pensions.
  So even in the final hours that we have, we are going to be serious 
about dealing with the issue of the economy because in our part of the 
country people are hurting. Real families are hurting. Working families 
are hurting.
  There are many, including myself, since September 11, who say we 
ought to put everything on the table in terms of our economy--put on 
the table future tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. There are 
those on the other side of the aisle who do not want to do it. They 
would rather cut back on the education programs in terms of the future.
  In the President's own program, he asks for additional kinds of tax 
cuts in his budget this year, even after September 11. Some of us are 
not sold on that. We believe in a sound economic program. It is not a 
matter of chance that the last two periods of time when we had the 
longest periods of economic growth and price stability in this country 
were under Democratic Presidents.
  In terms of our economy, there are important differences that we 
believe in and that the Republicans believe in. We are asking for 
assistance by the American people on election day to restore a strong 
economy for this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I love to hear my friend and colleague 
from Massachusetts. Sometimes we have a slight difference of opinion on 
a few of these issues, and I will try to clarify a couple of them. One 
which he has asked unanimous consent to pass is the unemployment 
compensation extension. Even in the consent request it says for a 13-
week extension of unemployment compensation, but the fact is the bill 
is for 26 weeks. Right now, it is a Federal program.
  Let me back up. States have a 26-week program. The Presiding Officer, 
as a former Governor from Delaware, understands the States have a 26-
week program. There is a 13-week temporary Federal unemployment 
compensation extension we use in times of high unemployment, paid, 
basically, totally by

[[Page 20649]]

the Federal Government. The Senator from Massachusetts is saying let's 
make that 13 weeks 26 weeks, not for a few States but all States, and 
then for some States an additional 7 weeks. So, basically, all States 
would get 52 weeks and some States would get 59 weeks.
  I want to make sure people understand the facts. I do not mind 
debating facts, but I think we ought to be factual. The fact is he is 
trying to double the Federal program, and that is very expensive. A 
simple extension costs about $6 billion or $7 billion. The bill that 
people have tried to pass now for the third or fourth time by unanimous 
consent would cost $17 billion.
  If my colleagues want to be responsible, I will work with them, but 
we are not going to pass something like this. This is more of a 
political statement so they can say, we are trying to pass unemployment 
compensation, and they can have Senator Nickles coming out objecting--
those Republicans will not allow this to pass.
  I was critical of the fact that the Senate has not passed 
appropriations bills and critical of the fact that the House has not. 
The House has not passed enough and neither has the Senate. My 
colleague from Massachusetts says all of the appropriations bills have 
to originate from the House. That is not what the Constitution says. 
The Constitution says all ``revenue raising bills.''
  I have article 1, section 7:

       All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House 
     of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with 
     Amendments as on other Bills.

  It is important we be factual. The House has to originate tax bills. 
The Senate can pass appropriations bills. I have always asserted our 
right. Because of tradition, the House wants to pass them first, and 
that is fine; that can be the tradition. But nothing should keep the 
Senate from passing appropriations bills first if we so desire. There 
is no point of order against them whatsoever.
  A point that was made on the Finance Committee--and I was critical of 
the Senate for bringing up a prescription drug proposal without it 
going through the Finance Committee. I did a little homework. Since the 
creation of Medicare in 1965, 22 of the 23 Medicare expansions passed 
the Finance Committee--bipartisan, overwhelming. We had a tripartisan 
bill that had a chance to garner bipartisan support on which many of us 
were requesting a markup in the Finance Committee, before we got to the 
floor, so we would have a bipartisan approach when it came to the very 
important, critical, and expensive extension of prescription drugs to 
Medicare. We were denied that markup. We are going to have the most 
expensive expansion of Medicare since its inception, and it will be 
done on the floor of the Senate without input from committee, without 
scoring, without the CBO, without expert input.
  That is a pretty crummy way to legislate. It makes one think the 
legislation was done more for political purposes than for substantive 
and legislative intent to make something happen.
  My good friend from Massachusetts discussed minimum wage. Senator 
Nickles is opposed. Not all Republicans are. This Republican is opposed 
to increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.65 in 14 months. That 
is a $1.50 increase in 14 months. A lot of people are paying in the 
neighborhood of $5.15 or $5.50. If they have to pay an extra $1.50 in 
the next year, many will say, I cannot do that, thank you very much. A 
small business in Delaware or Oklahoma--maybe it is a McDonald's--
cannot always afford to pass the $1.50 on and some employees will lose 
a job. Maybe it is pumping gas, sacking groceries, or sweeping floors.
  My colleague said this is to help increase people's self-esteem and 
integrity, people who are sweeping the floors. I used to sweep floors. 
I used to have a janitor service. I used to work for minimum wage, and 
so did my wife. It was only about 34 years ago we did that, and the 
minimum wage at that time, if I remember, was a lot less than it is 
today. It did not hurt my self-esteem. I wanted to make more money, so 
I started my own business. It was rather successful.
  My point is, I don't think we improve people's self-esteem alone by 
saying we will have the Federal Government setting higher standards, 
and if you cannot make it, we would rather you be unemployed. I would 
rather have someone working for $5.50 and climb the economic ladder 
than put that ladder up so high that they cannot get on and they stay 
unemployed and continue to draw welfare benefits.
  I hear we want to freeze this Bush tax cut for the ultrawealthy, the 
tax cuts for the millionaires. When President Clinton was elected, the 
maximum personal income tax rate was 31 percent. He increased that rate 
to 39.6 percent for personal income tax. President Clinton did that 
retroactively in 1993. President Bush, over several years, eventually 
gets that 39.6-percent rate in an incremental phasing down to 35 
percent. In other words, it is still several percent more than it was 
under President Clinton. It is 4 percentage points, but percentage-wise 
it is about a 13-percent rate higher than when President Clinton was 
elected.
  President Reagan lowered the rate to 28 percent. President Bush, the 
41st President, increased it, due to a lot of pressure, from 28 percent 
to 31 percent. President Clinton took it from 31 percent to 39.6. 
President Bush, the 43rd President, reduces that rate gradually from 
39.6 percent to 35 percent over several years. My colleagues are 
objecting to that as tax cuts for the wealthy. But that is not nearly 
as much as the tax increase proposed by the previous administration.
  It is very important we be factual. The pension bill has been on the 
calendar since July. Senator Daschle could have brought it up at any 
point. We have bipartisan support for the Finance Committee bill that 
was passed in July. The minimum wage has been on the calendar since 
May. If Senator Daschle wants to bring it up, he can. He is the 
majority leader. He has that right to bring up the issues. Two or three 
weeks before the election looks as if it is calculated more for 
political purposes than for trying to change the law of the land.
  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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________