[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 356-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SUPPORTING AMERICAN WORKERS

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to mention a series of events, 
many of which have just taken place in the last day or two, which 
either were published reports, news reports, or television reports that 
indicate another side of America than is the America being described 
with rose-tinted glasses.
  First of all, today there are some 13 million children who are going 
hungry. Eight million Americans are unemployed. Eight million workers 
lose overtime under the Bush proposal. We have had debates and 
discussions on this issue. We are going to come back to it very soon, 
at the first opportunity, hopefully even as soon as next week. Seven 
million low-wage workers have been waiting 7 years for an increase in 
the minimum wage. I will come back to this issue. And 3 million more 
Americans are living in poverty since President Bush took office.
  The final point I make is that 90,000 workers a week are losing their 
unemployment benefits--90,000 workers a week. We have the unemployment 
compensation fund which is funded at close to $20 billion. We have 
tried to get a temporary extension for some 13 weeks. It has been 
objected to now more than a dozen times by those on the other side of 
the aisle. It costs about $7 billion. Nearly twenty billion dollars are 
there.
  These workers are paying into the fund. We are talking about workers 
who have worked hard, paid into the fund, and the fund is out there and 
meant to assist the workers during an economic downturn. These workers 
should not be blamed for the economic downturn, and they are being 
blamed by denying them the extension on the unemployment insurance. As 
I say, 90,000 workers a week are losing their unemployment benefits.
  I will mention one other chart that helps illustrate what I mean when 
I talk about 13 million children who are going hungry every night. 
Hunger is increasing for the minimum-wage families. The Agriculture 
Department reported 300,000 more families are hungry today than when 
President Bush first took office--300,000 more. Twelve million American 
households are worried they will not have enough to eat. And nearly 4 
million American households have someone going hungry.
  This is in a country that can produce more agricultural products than 
any other country in the world, by far. We spend billions of dollars on 
land to ensure it is not going to be productive. We know how to do two 
things, if nothing else, in this Nation: We know how to grow food, and 
we know how to deliver it. We have the greatest agricultural lands in 
the world. We have effectively a Federal express. They can deliver 
products overnight. We know how to deliver it. We do not have to feed 
everyone by Federal express, but we sure know how to get food or get 
any product to people's homes or to the needy people. I believe hunger 
in America is a national disgrace. So this is a matter of very 
considerable concern.
  Last evening, when I returned home at a little after 6 o'clock, I 
turned on CNN and I was caught by a piece they did reporting on 
``Overwhelmed America.'' The broadcaster said: ``Tonight, the 
overwhelmed American worker.'' This is the report on the study called 
``Overwhelmed America.''

       Wages are stagnant, productivity is soaring, which means 
     many Americans are effectively working more for less. And 
     making matters even worse, millions of American workers now 
     find themselves competing with cheaper foreign labor just to 
     hold on to their jobs.

  Then it went on to Kate Bronfenbrenner, professor at Cornell 
University:

       The workers there are frightened because they wake up each 
     morning and they don't know whether their job is going to be 
     outsourced, downsized, contracted out, or eliminated.

  Outsourced, downsized, contracted out, or eliminated.

       They are overwhelmed because they feel like forces way 
     beyond their control are making the decisions that affect 
     their lives. And they are exhausted because they are working 
     harder, longer, and faster just to stand still. Americans are 
     scared of losing their jobs. They are working longer, harder, 
     and they still don't have job security.

  I will include the whole piece. It is a short piece, but I will read 
another sector:

       In growing numbers workers are feeling overworked, 
     underappreciated, and burned out. That is according to a 
     recent study of 1,100 workers that concluded ``Emotion

[[Page 357]]

     about the current work experience is extremely negative.''

  And the report goes on. I listened to that last night. It was very 
interesting. It is something that, again, restates basically what we 
have been saying on the floor of the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent that that CNN piece be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Transcripted Excerpt From CNN on ``Overwhelmed America,'' January 22, 
                                  2004

       Pilgrim: Tonight the overwhelmed American worker.
       Wages are stagnant, productivity is soaring, which means 
     many Americans are effectively working more for less. And 
     making matters even worse, millions of American workers now 
     find themselves competing with cheaper foreign labor just to 
     hold on to their jobs.
       Peter Viles has the report.
       Peter Viles (CNN Correspondent). This is the California 
     grocery strike, but it might as well be from a time capsule, 
     because the strike, the ultimate workers' weapon, is almost 
     extinct in America.
       In the 1950s, there were 352 major strikes per year, so far 
     this decade, 25 per year. Unions have lost membership and 
     lost clout. Real wages have been stagnant for three decades. 
     One labor scholar describes workers right now as frightened, 
     overwhelmed and exhausted.
       Kate Bronfenbrenner (Professor, Cornell University). They 
     are frightened because they wake up each morning and they 
     don't know whether their job is going to be outsourced, 
     downsized, contracted out or eliminated. They are overwhelmed 
     because they fell like forces way beyond their control are 
     making the decisions that affect their lives. And they are 
     exhausted because they are working harder and longer and 
     faster just to stand still.
       Viles. So why are workers not pushing back, demanding wage 
     increases or better benefits? Experts say workers just don't 
     have the leverage and are also growing discouraged about the 
     future.
       Larry Mishel (Economic Policy Institute). Individual 
     workers are scared for their jobs. They think that any job 
     they have is going to be better than the job they are going 
     to get next. That keeps them from pushing back on employers.
       Viles. In growing numbers, workers are feeling overworked, 
     underappreciated and burned out. That's according to a recent 
     study of 1,100 workers that concluded--quote--``Emotion about 
     the current work experience is extremely negative.''
       Donald Lowman (Managing director, Towers Perrin). I don't 
     think workers are apathetic. I think they are very negative 
     right now. There is a big group that's quite negative right 
     now. They fear intensely, though, about their job. They would 
     really like to see things change. They have not withdrawn. 
     They are not indifferent.
       Viles. There are signs that workplace anxiety is shaping up 
     as a major campaign issue. In Iowa, the two most important 
     issues to caucus-goers, not terrorism or Iraq, but the 
     economy and health care. The workplace anxieties fueled by 
     what some economists are now calling the worst hiring slump 
     since the Great Depression in America, a jobless recovery 
     that continues to surprise and disappoint economists, but 
     also continues to give employers the upper hand in the labor 
     market--Kitty.
       Pilgrim. Pete, what would it take to give the employees 
     some leverage? It seems like an impossible situation.
       Viles. It would take a lot more hiring. Until the millions 
     of people who are unemployed and the millions working part-
     time who want full-time work get into the job market, 
     employers have the leverage. Employers don't give raises 
     because they think they should. They give raises because they 
     have to. And right now, they don't have to.
       Pilgrim. Yes. Thanks very much, Pete Viles.
       Viles. Sure.

  Mr. KENNEDY. And then, lo and behold, this morning, on the front 
page--on Friday, January 23--what is the leading story in the Wall 
Street Journal? ``The Gap in Wages Is Grow-
ing Again for U.S. Workers. Inequal-
ity Is Seen as Result of the Jobless
Recovery. . . .''

       Wage inequality--the gap between America's highest and 
     lowest earners--has started widening again, a situation with 
     election-year ramifications.
       The trend is a reflection of the job market's exceptionally 
     weak response to the current economic recovery, as well as 
     long-term technological and economic changes that have eroded 
     the bargaining power of America's lowest-paid workers.
       The data show that young workers--who currently have fewer 
     job prospects than a few years ago--and men, in particular, 
     are bearing the brunt.
       The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality 
     that began around the time President Bush succeeded President 
     Clinton--

  That is the Wall Street Journal report.

       The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality 
     that began around the time President Bush succeeded President 
     Clinton and the economy slid into recession three years ago. 
     The trend represents a reversal from the late 1990s, when the 
     lowest unemployment rates in a generation had enabled the 
     lowest-paid workers to keep pace with those at the top.

  The article goes on. I ask unanimous consent that the article in its 
entirety be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23, 2004]

           The Gap in Wages Is Growing Again for U.S. Workers


    Inequality Is Seen as Result of the Jobless Recovery; Potential 
                             Election Theme

                              (By Greg Ip)

       Washington.--Wage inequality--the gap between America's 
     highest and lowest earners--has started widening again, a 
     situation with election-year ramifications.
       The trend is a reflection of the job market's exceptionally 
     weak response to the current economic recovery, as well as 
     long-term technological and economic changes that have eroded 
     the bargaining power of America's lowest-paid workers. The 
     data show that young workers--who currently have fewer job 
     prospects than a few years ago--and men, in particular are 
     bearing the brunt.
       New data from the Labor Department show that after 
     adjustment for inflation, salaries of the country's lowest-
     paid workers--those who fall just inside the bottom 10 
     percent of the pay range-fell 0.3 percent last year from 
     2002. Meanwhile, the salaries of the highest paid workers--
     those who are just inside the top 10 percent--were unchanged. 
     The divergence appeared to grow in the fourth quarter as 
     higher-paid workers gained ground and lower-paid workers 
     slipped further, based on comparisons with original year-
     earlier data that are subject to revision.
       The numbers continue a movement to greater wage inequality 
     that began around the time President Bush succeeded President 
     Clinton and the economy slid into recession three years ago. 
     The trend represents a reversal from the late 1990s, when the 
     lowest unemployment rates in a generation had enabled the 
     lowest-paid workers to keep pace with those at the top.
       This wage picture is likely to figure in this year's 
     unfolding election campaign. Democratic presidential 
     candidates have made the economic hardship of typical working 
     families a centerpiece of their platforms. They also say 
     President Bush's tax cuts aggravate growing inequality by 
     giving larger benefits to those in higher income brackets.
       President Bush has pushed tax cuts for all families as well 
     as improvements in public schools as the keys to increasing 
     employment and individual prosperity. In his State of the 
     Union address this week, he proposed spending $250 million on 
     a program for community colleges to train workers for jobs in 
     growing sectors and boosting Pell Grants, which help poor 
     students pay for college. These moves will ``help more and 
     more Americans to join in the growing prosperity of our 
     country,'' Mr. Bush said.
       Increased inequality ``is the totally predictable result of 
     relatively strong growth in tandem with relatively high 
     unemployment.'' said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the 
     liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. ``right now 
     we have far more job seekers than jobs [and] workers just 
     lack the bargaining power to push for a larger slice of the 
     growing pie. It's a recipe for higher inequality.''
       The new turn may merely represent a return to a longer-term 
     trend that was only temporarily stalled. Sheldon Danziger, an 
     economist at the University of Michigan, said inequality 
     began to increase in the 1970s, and now appears to have 
     resumed after an interruption in the late 1990s. Prof. 
     Danziger, who has studied inequality extensively, attributes 
     the trend to technological change and increased trade, which 
     have placed a premium on higher-paid workers' skills while 
     displacing many lesser-skilled workers from well-paying jobs. 
     Other factors at play are the decline in unionization and the 
     stagnant minimum wage.
       In a report released last week, the Labor Department's 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics said that, overall, the median 
     full-time worker over 16 years of age earned $625 a week in 
     the fourth quarter of last year, up 2 percent from a year 
     earlier. But adjusting for increased consumer prices that 
     represented just a 0.1 percent increase in purchasing power.
       The median represents the midpoint: half of all workers 
     earn more, and half earn less. It is considered more 
     representative of the typical family than is the average 
     paycheck, which can be heavily influenced by movements of the 
     highest wages.
       The widening gap seen last year between the top--typically 
     managers and other professionals--and the bottom--which 
     includes restaurant workers, security guards and

[[Page 358]]

     other service positions--were part of a movement that now 
     appears to have begun with the recession in 2001. The weekly 
     wage of the worker at the ``10th percentile'' of wages rose 
     from $284 in the fourth quarter of 2000 to $303 in the fourth 
     quarter of last year, a total increase of just 0.6 percent, 
     after inflation. (Tenth percentile means that worker's wage 
     represented the cutoff point between the 10 percent lowest 
     paid workers and the 90 percent better-paid workers.) In the 
     same period, the weekly wage of the 90th percentile worker 
     rose from $1,299 to $1,440, an increase of 4.5 percent after 
     inflation.
       It was a different story in the late 1990s. Between late 
     1996 and late 2000, real wages for the lowest paid workers 
     rose 8 percent, not much less than the 8.8 percent gain for 
     the highest paid.
       The latest data cover full-time salaried workers, 
     representing about 100 million workers, or about two-thirds 
     of the labor force. They don't include part-time workers, the 
     self-employed, the unemployed, those not in the work force 
     such as retirees, taxes, government payments, or investment 
     income. As such, the figures don't fully capture trends in 
     total family disposable income. The data aren't distorted by 
     pay packages to executives and others through such methods as 
     stock options which ballooned in the 1990s but have shrunken 
     some recently. That is because even at the 90th percentile, 
     the annual salary, about $75,000, is still modest compared 
     with what most senior corporate executives earn.
       The data are broadly consistent with trends in the Census 
     Bureau's much larger annual report on household-income 
     trends, which are available through 2002.
       Many scholars attribute widening income disparities to 
     technological change, which displaces workers whose jobs can 
     be easily done by a machine or computer program, while 
     boosting the productivity of workers who get to use the more 
     sophisticated technology.
       Mr. Danziger notes he doesn't wait in line as much at the 
     airport because ``I can buy my ticket and print my boarding 
     pass online.'' As a result, he bypasses several traditional 
     middle-class workers, such as travel agents and the people at 
     the ticket counter. Increased trade is also a factor. 
     Routine, lower-skilled jobs are more easily shifted to lower-
     wage workers overseas, even as trade with such countries 
     gives most Americans access to cheaper products.
       Other scholars emphasize other factors, including a federal 
     minimum wage that hasn't risen since 1997, and the declining 
     power of unions, which traditionally bargained to raise the 
     wages of all workers, regardless of their skill or 
     experience.
       Indeed, according to a separate Labor Department report 
     this week, the average weekly paycheck of union members grew 
     3 percent last year from 2002, before adjustment for 
     inflation, to $760, while the weekly paycheck of nonunion 
     members grew 2 percent, to $599. But the share of U.S. 
     workers who are union members continued its long-term 
     decline, falling to 12.9 percent from 13.3 percent in 2002. A 
     related trend has been manufacturing's declining share of 
     employment; factories traditionally were a source of well-
     paying, less-skilled, often unionized jobs.
       The latest Labor Department wage data suggest that young 
     workers and men have been hardest hit. The median paycheck of 
     workers age 16 to 24 shrank slightly, after inflation, from 
     2000 to 2003 while that of workers age 25 and over grew 0.6 
     percent a year. In the late 1990s, young workers' wages grew 
     faster.
       Also, the median paycheck of men grew just 0.3 percent a 
     year, much less than that of women, at 1.8 percent a year, 
     although at $704 a week, men still earn about 25 percent 
     more. There was little difference in trends for white and 
     black workers. While in recent decades the wages of better-
     educated workers have grown faster, that wasn't the case 
     recently: College-educated workers actually did a bit worse 
     than those with just a high-school diploma in the past three 
     years.
       On the campaign trail, Democratic Sen. John Edwards of 
     North Carolina has hammered most on the theme of income 
     disparity. Under President Bush, ``there are two Americas, 
     not one,'' he said last month. ``One America does the work, 
     while another America reaps the reward.''
       Gen. Wesley Clark has also pushed that theme. ``We may have 
     had a good [economic-growth] number, but where it really 
     matters--whether people are getting jobs and what they're 
     earning on those jobs--people in America are still 
     struggling,'' said Jason Furman, policy director for the 
     Clark campaign.
       But Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise 
     Institute, said the lesson of the late 1990s is that the best 
     way to lift lower-paid workers' wages is through strong 
     economic growth, which is what Mr. Bush's tax cuts are 
     delivering.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, an Economic Policy Institute report came 
out January 21. Here we are, on January 21, the Economic Policy 
Institute's study of job shifting. It says:

       In 48 of the 50 States, jobs in higher-paying industries 
     have given way to jobs in lower-paying industries--

  The jobs that are being created in these States, as an average, are 
going down.

     since the recession ended in November 2001. Nationwide, 
     industries that are gaining jobs relative to industries that 
     are losing jobs pay 21 percent less annually. For the 30 
     States that have lost jobs since the recession purportedly 
     ended, this is the other shoe dropping--not only have jobs 
     been lost, but in 29 of them the losses have been 
     concentrated in higher-paying sectors. And for 19 of the 20 
     States, they have seen some small gain in jobs since the end 
     of the recession. The jobs gained have been 
     disproportionately in lower-paying sectors.

  Two States have grown 21 percent less. Nebraska and Nevada are the 
two States that are the exception. Here is the State of New Hampshire, 
which still has fewer jobs than when the recession ended, and where the 
wages in industries gaining jobs are 35 percent lower than wages in 
industries losing jobs. For new jobs, they are getting paid 35 percent 
less in the State of New Hampshire.
  The State of Delaware likewise has lost jobs since the recession 
ended and where job-gaining industries have wages 43 percent below 
those in the job-losing industries.
  Colorado has lost 2 percent of its jobs since the end of the 
recession and job-gaining industry wages are 35 percent below the wages 
in job-losing industries.
  West Virginia has lost 1.7 percent of its jobs since the end of the 
recession, and wages in job-gaining industries are 33 percent below 
wages in job-losing industries.
  These are the facts. We have the Wall Street Journal, the Economic 
Policy Institute, and the study that was quoted in Overwhelmed 
America--that is just in the last 24 hours--about what is happening in 
America.
  That is a good deal different than what I heard in the State of the 
Union Address by the President. The President said on page 4:

       This economy is strong and growing stronger . . .
       Americans took those dollars [from the tax cut] and put 
     them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of 
     economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest 
     in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in 
     almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. 
     Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. 
     Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is 
     high, and jobs are on the rise.

  These are two different Americas, Mr. President, two entirely 
different Americas. It is the second America that many of us are 
fighting for here in the Senate.
  What has been the answer by the administration? Let's take the 
minimum wage, for example. Minimum wage, unemployment compensation, 
overtime--we have made the presentation that American workers are 
working longer and harder. Not only are individuals working longer and 
harder, but families are working harder and longer. Women are working 
longer and harder. Look at what happened. And we wonder why we are 
seeing the increasing incidence of hungry children and hunger in 
America--look at what happened to the minimum wage. Now it is, without 
the increase, down to $4.95. That is about the lowest it has been in 
years. Seven long years without an increase. A majority of the 
membership would vote for an increase in the minimum wage. The 
Republican leadership and the Bush administration will not give us an 
opportunity to do so. In 7 years, we have increased our own salary six 
times, but we have not had an increase in the minimum wage.
  We will talk about an increase in the minimum wage. Americans, I 
believe, think someone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, 
should not have to live in poverty in the strongest Nation in the 
world, with the strongest economy and the strongest military. I think 
that is a family value--being able to provide for your children, 
parents having a sense of dignity and pride in their work and work 
product, families being able to stay together. That is a family value. 
We hear a lot of speeches on this floor and elsewhere about family 
values. That is a family value--making sure that hard-working men and 
women are going to be able to provide for their families. We are denied 
that opportunity.
  We are not taking no for an answer. That minimum wage is coming at 
this

[[Page 359]]

institution and it is coming once, twice, as many times as necessary. 
So there will be no doubt among the American people who will be 
standing for those workers and who is against them.
  Unemployment compensation. Ninety thousand workers who worked hard 
now have seen their benefits expire--90,000 a week. We have heard on 
the other side of the aisle in the last 2 days--the leaders in the 
Republican Party--saying: Don't worry about it, Senator, we are 
creating new jobs.
  Well, let's have a reality check. The administration promised 300,000 
jobs and the reality is 1,000 jobs. Who are we kidding? The American 
people are getting used to the fact that there is a lot of rhetoric on 
the one hand and no followup on the other. That was true in the No 
Child Left Behind Act, and it is apparently true about our trip to 
Mars.
  Did you see the rollout of the President talking about going to Mars, 
and there was no mention of it in the State of the Union Address. The 
best estimates are it will cost a trillion dollars and they are 
allocating $5 billion. Get the political hit and then forget about it. 
That is also what happened with No Child Left Behind. That we cannot 
get an extension on unemployment compensation, when the economy is 
creating only 1,000 jobs, and they estimated over 300,000, makes the 
point. Those hard-working Americans who paid into the unemployment 
compensation fund, which is in surplus at the present time, should be 
able to get the extension of 13 weeks.
  Third is the overtime issue. We have seen who that affects. It 
affects basically the policemen and firefighters and nurses--some 8 
million Americans. And included in the recommendations, as I pointed 
out, for the first time, it will say if a veteran had certain kinds of 
training in the military, which may very well have been the reason he 
went into the service--obviously, the underlying reason is because he 
or she wanted to serve their country. But the idea that you are going 
to get a skill is attractive, too. You can get education benefits, 
which is attractive, too. That makes a difference in recruitment. We 
have seen it. I know about it. I am on the Armed Services Committee. We 
know we are falling further behind and not meeting our recruiting goals 
in the National Guard by 10,000 this year. We know we are offering any 
of the soldiers over in Iraq a bonus of $10,000 if they reenlist over 
there. So we know we have these challenges.
  Now for the first time they are prohibiting overtime, not only for 
those I just mentioned, but the rule, as I read into the Record, 
includes--these are the exact words, Mr. President:

       Under the Bush plan, veterans who have received training in 
     the military that is equivalent to a specialized 4-year 
     degree could be classified as exempt ``professional 
     employees'' and lose their overtime protection.

  There is a whole list of training programs. Obviously, we have new 
technology. Our military is the best in the world. We have new 
technology, new training programs. People go into the military and get 
the training. They serve our country and risk their lives to protect 
our Nation. They come back from Iraq and get a job, but no, no, you 
don't get overtime.
  Why did they put in that provision? It is interesting. In looking 
over the comments of different groups about overtime, there is one 
particular company, a major defense company, which commented on the 
Bush proposal saying that their company observes that many of its most 
skilled technical workers received a significant portion of their 
knowledge and training outside the university classroom, typically in a 
branch of the military service.
  There you go. So they add, we will include the American military 
veterans in banning them from receiving overtime. People wonder why 
workers are discouraged, overworked, they can't get decent pay, they 
can't get benefits. They have seen their jobs outsourced. They are 
seeing their jobs sent overseas. Their pension programs are in 
jeopardy. Their security in the job place is very much threatened.
  We ought to be thinking about what we can do for families. There are 
a series of steps we can take. Certainly increasing the minimum wage, 
extending unemployment compensation, and making sure these workers 
receive overtime is just a bare minimum.
  I look forward to the debate on those issues. This is really a part 
of a whole concept, and that is the condition of workers in this 
country. We didn't even begin to get into the workers' payment of 
prescription drugs, which has been escalating out of sight. The bill 
that passed some weeks ago, and the prohibition written into that bill, 
again behind closed doors, prohibits Medicare from bargaining for bulk-
rate purchasing of prescription drugs that would give some advantage 
and protection for our seniors. That has affected the quality of life 
for working family members who retire and are on Social Security and 
pay much higher prescription drug prices.
  I didn't mention that impact and what is happening to working 
families. I haven't mentioned the extraordinary escalation of the cost 
of health care. I was rolling over in my mind the answer by the 
administration to the escalation of health care costs. The one answer 
that was given in the State of the Union Address was malpractice 
insurance is going to solve this problem. Come on.
  We are at the present time spending close to 15 percent of our gross 
national product on health care, more than $5,000 for every man, woman, 
and child. Thirty cents out of every dollar is a nonclinical dollar. 
Most industries are down 17, 18 percent. If we reduce the 30 cents to 
27 cents, we save $50 billion a year. If we reduce it to 20 cents, we 
save $100 billion a year. We can do a lot with $100 billion. There are 
ways of doing that. Do you think we can do that?
  We will have an opportunity to debate those issues. I welcome the 
fact the majority leader says health care and health insurance will be 
on the floor because we will have an opportunity to get a meaningful 
result. It may not be the kind of program the pharmaceutical industry 
supports, and it may not be the program the insurance industry 
supports, but, by God, it will be a program the average family and the 
working families of this country will support, and it will make a 
difference in their lives and in their families' lives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________