[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5681-5707]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERYONE ACT--
                               Continued

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


                         National Energy Policy

  But there is a dark cloud over the horizon, and that dark cloud is 
there today because the Congress of the United States, and the Senate 
in particular, a year ago denied this country a new national energy 
policy and the ability to begin to produce energy, once again.
  We are no longer energy independent. That one driving force we had in 
the economic matrix that said we could produce something for less--
because we had the great ingenuity of the American workforce and 
because the input of energy was less than anywhere else in the world, 
so we could produce it better and we could produce it for less cost--is 
no longer true today.
  If you went out this morning to refuel your car before you headed to 
work, you paid at an all-time high level of gas prices. Why? Because 
the Senate of the United States denied this country a national energy 
policy.

[[Page 5682]]

  We know it is happening. We have seen it headed in that direction for 
over 7 years. Many of us have pled on this floor to develop that policy 
to get us back into production. But, no, we are not into production, we 
are not producing at a level we could be and we should be. We are not 
creating all the kinds of alternative fuels we ought to be. Why? 
Because we have not established a national energy policy in the last 8 
years.
  The world has changed a great deal. We are now over half dependent on 
foreign sources of oil. Of course, there are many who will rush to the 
floor and point a finger at OPEC or point a finger at the political 
turmoil in Venezuela and say: Well, that is their problem, and it is 
their fault we are paying higher energy prices. Or we will have that 
proverbial group that will run out and point their finger at big oil.
  Why don't we point the finger at the Senate, for once, which has 
denied this country a national energy policy? The Senator from New 
Mexico was on the floor a few moments ago, Mr. Bingaman. He worked 2 
years ago to get one. I helped him, and we could not quite get there.
  Then the other Senator from New Mexico did produce a policy, and we 
passed it in a bipartisan way. It went to the House, and we conferenced 
it, and the House passed the conference. It came back here. It fell 
apart. It fell apart for one little reason or another, but the bottom 
line was the politics of it. The Senate of the United States has again 
denied the consumer and the working man and woman the right to have an 
energy source and a competitive energy price to go to work on, or to 
work with when they get to work, or to have for recreation, or to have 
to heat their home, or to have to turn the lights on in their house, 
and to illuminate and energize the computer they use.
  The driving force of the economy of this country is not the politics 
on the street today; it is the politics of energy. It always has been. 
When we have competitive, moderate-to-low energy prices, the American 
worker can produce and compete with any workforce in the world. But 
today we are slowly but surely denying them that.
  Natural gas is at an all-time high. Gas at the pump is at an all-time 
high. Electricity prices in many areas around this country are at an 
all-time high. The great tragedy is, many of those prices are 
artificially inflated because of the politics of the issue, because 
this Senate has denied the American worker and the American consumer a 
national energy policy.
  Now, some say, well, the wealthy are going to get wealthy off of 
this. What about the poor? Has anybody ever calculated that high energy 
prices impact poor people more than any other segment in our society?
  If you are a household with an average annual income of $50,000, you 
only spend about 4 percent of your income on energy. But if you are a 
household with an income between $10,000 and $24,000, you spend 13 
percent; you spend a higher proportion of your total income on energy. 
If you are a household of $10,000 or less, or at about 130-plus percent 
of poverty, you spend almost 30 percent of everything you make on 
energy--whether it is the gas you put in your car, or the throwing of a 
switch to illuminate the light bulb in your ceiling, or the heat for 
your home.
  High energy prices impact poor people more, and yet we will still 
hear these great allegations on the floor that somebody is going to get 
rich off of energy.
  No. Poor people are going to get poorer with higher energy prices. 
That is the impact and the reality of the problems we face.
  The United States is making do now with a lot less energy on a per 
capita basis. Some say: We can just conserve our way out of this 
situation. We are doing a very good job in conservation today than we 
did, let's say, 20 years ago.
  Let me give you a figure or two. In the last three decades, the U.S. 
economy has grown 126 percent, but energy use has grown only 30 
percent. In other words, as our economy grows today, as a rate of a 
unit of production, we use less energy. Why? Efficiencies, new 
technologies. But as we grow, we are still going to need more energy. 
So the old argument about conserving your way out--and, oh, my 
goodness, if I have heard it once on the Senate floor in the last 6 
years, I have heard it 2 or 3 times, that automobile fuel consumption 
has dropped 60 percent in that 20-year period. And we ought to be proud 
of that.
  That is partly a work of the Senate, but that is also the new 
technologies and efficiencies. Per capita oil consumption is down 20 
percent since 1978. Industrial energy use is down 20 percent since 
1978. So the reality is, we have done well.
  But if you want to create 800,000 new jobs, then it is going to take 
energy to produce them. Because it is energy that drives the great 
economy of our country. And when it is high-priced energy, then the 
jobs become high priced. When the jobs become high priced, then we 
worry about those jobs leaving the United States.
  Why hasn't the Senate of the United States put this relatively simple 
formula together, that high-cost energy creates a less competitive 
environment in which we can produce. If we are going to talk welfare--
and we are and we should; and we are going to reform it--and we are 
going to talk minimum wage, and there is no reason why we should not 
talk minimum wage--then we have to talk about the economy of creating 
jobs at the same time.
  The production tax credit we are talking about for the energy field 
alone would create 150,000 new jobs. As I said, the bill we have in 
front of us--that should pass unanimously in this Senate, but it cannot 
get there--will create literally between 670,000 and 800,000 new jobs 
during the initial phases of the development of that kind of energy.
  My message to the consumer today: If you do not like the price of 
your energy bill this winter, if you do not like the price of gas at 
your pump, if you are worried about your job because it may be going 
overseas, because your production is less competitive today, pick up 
the phone and call your Senator. Ask him or her why--ask us why--we did 
not pass a national energy bill. There is nothing wrong with doing 
that. Because we should have done that. We should have started down 
that road of getting ourselves back into the production. But, oh, no, 
we are bound up in the politics of this business, and somehow we just 
cannot get there. And try as we have for the last 5 years, in a 
bipartisan way, we have worked to do so.
  We have a bill before us now that ought to receive a nearly 
resounding unanimous vote, but it failed in the Senate. Our failure 
means the jobs of America's working men and women are at risk, the 
household automobile is now much more expensive to operate, and you 
will probably want to turn your thermostat down next winter if gas 
prices continue to go as high as they appear to be going.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 2945

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FAIR MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Fair 
     Minimum Wage Act of 2004''.
       (b) Increase in the Minimum Wage.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:

[[Page 5683]]

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

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with 
my colleague from Massachusetts who is the true leader on the issue of 
trying to raise the minimum wage so that people who are trying to get 
into the workforce, get off of welfare and subsidy, will be able to 
actually support their families so that we actually reward work, and it 
is going to make a huge difference.
  Before I go into my remarks, I do want to, however, respond to my 
friend who spoke about how important it is to call your Senators and 
ask them to pass that Energy bill that we killed. I hope when you call 
us, you will tell us not to pass that one. That one was a travesty of 
justice for consumers. It was a terrible bill if you care about the 
environment. And it was a terrible bill if you believe that there is 
already too much corporate welfare because there were huge subsidies to 
the nuclear industry.
  There were huge subsidies by way of giving a liability waiver to 
those companies that made MTBE, which destroyed drinking water supplies 
all over the country. The Senate was sending this bill over to a 
conference committee, and it comes back with this liability waiver. It 
is a terrible bill.
  Yes, there are places we could drill in this country, where the folks 
want it there and the oil is there. Off the Gulf of Mexico, near 
Louisiana, certain places in Alaska, it makes sense. But it does not 
make sense to pass an Energy bill that is back to the future because it 
doesn't understand that times have changed and just a couple of extra 
miles of fuel economy and fuel efficiency in our automobiles can mean 
that we will have fields and fields of energy in the future.
  The last point I want to make--and then I want to talk about this 
amendment which is important to this bill--is that on April 25 or 
thereabouts, taxpayers are funding a court case where Dick Cheney, the 
Vice President, is refusing to reveal who came into his office when he 
put together an energy report and worked on an Energy bill. It is 
outrageous that taxpayers have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, 
essentially, because they are paying for the defense of Dick Cheney, 
and he refuses to reveal who met with him about the Energy bill, what 
they talked about, and what their interests were. We know Enron was in 
that meeting. That much we know. But I don't know who else was there.
  So I just wanted to answer the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Craig, 
because in my view, we did a great service to the people by not passing 
that particular Energy bill. Let's pass an Energy bill that is a good 
Energy bill.
  Now, I want to get to the amendment I sent to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Kennedy and lay the groundwork for why it is so 
important to this welfare reform bill.
  The last time the Federal minimum wage was raised it was $4.25 an 
hour. In 1996, it was raised to $5.15. It was over a 2-year period. So 
that is 8 years ago; 8 years ago we raised the Federal minimum wage. 
Those people at the bottom of the economic ladder are living on $10,700 
a year.
  I don't know if my colleagues are aware of what it costs to rent an 
apartment, if you have a family, and you are trying to raise a family 
on this amount of money. I guess you might be lucky, in my neck of the 
woods, to try and get some sort of an apartment for $800 a month or 
$850, if you could even find one. You can't find it around here, a 
decent size place. That would use up the entire salary of someone 
living on the minimum wage.
  I say to my colleagues, please support this. How can we expect people 
to live on this amount of money, to be able to afford rent, food, the 
minimum requirements for raising a family?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. It is true, is it not, that 60 percent of the people who 
draw the minimum wage are women?
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. And for 40 percent of those women, that is the only money 
they get for them and their families?
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is accurate.
  Mr. REID. So this is an issue that doesn't relate to kids at 
McDonald's flipping hamburgers. It relates to people supporting their 
families. I greatly admire the Senator for being the lead person on 
this amendment dealing with the minimum wage that will affect families 
in Nevada and around the rest of the country. Is that not true?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is absolutely true. In my State we have a minimum 
wage that is higher than the Federal minimum wage, but there is no 
question that the Federal minimum wage is a benchmark number.
  A poverty rate for a family of three in our country today is $15,607. 
And for a family of four, it is $18,850. So, yes, if you are a single 
mom or a single dad and you are working at a minimum-wage job, you are 
making less than people who are considered to be in poverty. What a 
travesty.
  And even if you have two workers working at the minimum wage, you 
would barely get out of the poverty range. So we are talking about a 
severe deficiency in compassion. These days, we hear a lot about 
compassionate conservatives. I have seen a conservative side. I want to 
see the compassionate side on this particular vote.
  How can anyone believe it is fair to keep the minimum wage where it 
has been for 8 years? It is not fair.
  We are talking about a bill that seeks to lift people out of the 
darkest, deepest economic hole. We want to start them on their way to 
being able to take care of themselves and their families. You cannot 
lift yourself out of a deep economic hole on a minimum-wage job.
  As my friend from Nevada points out, we used to think of the minimum 
wage--when I was a kid it was 50 cents an hour, and the kids took the 
minimum-wage jobs. What I used to work at when I was a kid was 50 cents 
an hour.
  I am showing my age. Maybe I shouldn't do that. But we didn't look at 
families who were surviving on that. Today we are looking at families 
who are surviving on the minimum wage.
  We can be sure of one thing: If we don't lift the minimum wage, 
people may move off of welfare into the workforce, but they will not 
move out of poverty.
  Studies have shown that between half and three-quarters of those who 
are leaving welfare remain poor for up to 3 years. The courage that it 
takes to train yourself for work, to get up every day and not even to 
be able to afford to pay the rent--this isn't right.
  Some may say: Senator, these minimum-wage jobs are just starter jobs. 
They are just a few months.
  Studies prove that you may be stuck in that job for 3 years, and that 
is just average. You may be stuck in that job for 6 years. With the 
economic circumstances of the last 3 years, where we have seen a loss 
of 3 million private sector jobs, it isn't as if you have a tremendous 
array of jobs out there.
  What will our amendment do? Our amendment will increase the Federal

[[Page 5684]]

minimum wage to $7 an hour in three steps over 2 years and 2 months. It 
would raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour today to $5.85 an hour 
in 2 months, after enactment of this act, then to $6.45 in another 
year, and then to $7 a year after that. Even at that rate of $7, you 
are barely able to survive. But at least we are moving the minimum wage 
toward a more livable wage.
  Let me talk about California. My State stepped out and looked at the 
Federal minimum wage and said: This cannot be. This will not work in 
our State, where the rental costs are so high; where the food costs, 
even though we are the breadbasket of the world, are high; where the 
cost of transit is high. So in my State, the minimum wage today is 
$6.75.
  The States cannot do it alone. The Federal Government has to set the 
standard of compassion and fairness and make work an honorable 
endeavor.
  The best social program is a job. I agree with that. I would much 
prefer that people work than not. But work has to be rewarded. You may 
ask: Senator Boxer, why does this bill matter since your State has a 
higher minimum wage of $6.75? It is very clear. The Federal Government 
sets the floor for workers everywhere, and it is a guide to all States, 
including my State. Even a small increase to $7 will help 393,000 
workers in California, if California keeps the minimum wage at $6.75.
  Raising the minimum wage helps many more low-wage workers than just 
those earning the minimum wage because it does set the standard. You 
have heard that many cities and counties all over the country are 
casting what they call ``livable wages,'' because they are looking at a 
minimum wage and realizing that it is really a sub-minimum wage; it 
isn't going to really work. Why not have a minimum wage that we can be 
proud of here? That is what Senator Kennedy and I are trying to do 
today.
  Let's look at what has happened in the area of poverty in our 
country. The poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent in America in 2002, from 
11.7 percent in 2001. So this administration's economic policies, which 
caused the loss of so many private sector jobs, has seen an increase in 
poverty. And 1.7 million people have been added to the ranks of the 
poor, including many women and many children. You can be a 
compassionate conservative, a compassionate progressive, or a 
compassionate liberal, or anything you want to call yourself. 
Compassion is the name of the game. It will help our country. I will 
talk about that in a minute.
  Let's look at what else has happened. First, you have 12.1 million 
children living in poverty today. In 2002, 34.6 million Americans were 
living in poverty. Think about that. I have 35 million people in my 
State, and 34 million Americans were in poverty in 2002. The whole 
State of California equals the number of people who were in poverty. 
That is an enormous number. My State, if it were a nation, would be the 
fifth largest in terms of its GDP. Imagine if every person in my State 
were in poverty. That is what we have. So we have 12 million children 
in poverty.
  Let's look at something else. For the first time in many years, 
working Americans' wage growth is almost stagnant, while during the 
last term of the Clinton administration those wages grew. So what am I 
saying to you? We have seen an increase in poverty among women and 
children and families, we have seen an increase in the poverty rate, 
and we see wage growth that is almost stagnant.
  From the end of 1996 to the end of 2000, full-time workers saw their 
usual weekly earnings grow faster than inflation, and those gains in 
real wages were evident for both higher and lower wage workers. In 
fact, the lowest earning 10 percent of the workers saw their wages 
increase 2 percent greater than inflation. So before the Bush 
administration, we saw this wonderful real wage growth--wages that were 
going up faster than inflation. In contrast, from the end of 2000 until 
the end of 2003, real weekly earnings for working-class Americans 
stagnated. The lowest 10 percent of American workers have seen their 
wages go up by 0.2 percent; whereas, before, they went up 2.1 percent. 
Now it is 0.2 percent. So people are working harder and they are just 
not getting ahead at all.
  Again, whether we call ourselves conservatives, moderates, or 
liberals, that doesn't matter to me. I just think the word 
``compassion'' comes into it. Also, a word that has to come into this--
or two words--are ``smart policy.'' Why is it smart policy? I will get 
into that.
  One of the arguments you hear against raising the minimum wage--and 
you hear it every time--is don't raise the minimum wage because it is 
going to hurt employers. We have heard that since the very first day I 
was working in a minimum-wage job at 50 cents an hour. What if Congress 
in the past decided to just hold firm at 50 cents an hour? I am sure 
Senator Kennedy heard the same arguments all those years ago, when 
people came to the floor and said 50 cents an hour is enough, and don't 
raise the minimum wage because it will be a burden to employers.
  The truth is that we have seen in the history of the greatest country 
in the world, when you raise the minimum wage, everyone does better. 
Workers perform better. They are more productive. Business does better. 
They are more productive. Their profit margins go up. So let us not 
hear the same old, same old, same old words from the past that, oh, it 
is a burden on everyone. No, it has proven to be an economic stimulus.
  There is another theory I would like to test with my colleagues who 
have supported tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. If you are a 
millionaire, you are going to get back $120,000 a year. Think about 
that, folks. If you are a millionaire, under the Bush tax cut, you will 
get a cut in taxes of $120,000 a year. A minimum-wage earner today, 
working full time, 8 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, earns $10,800 a 
year. So my calculation is that this year's tax cut for millionaires is 
11 times the yearly income of a full-time minimum-wage worker.
  What are we doing? Why are we here? I admire the folks in the upper 
income brackets, and I happen to know a lot of them in California. Do 
you know what they say to me? They say: Senator, you make sure everyone 
is brought along. When everybody is brought along, we do better. First, 
we feel better about ourselves and our country, but we do better. Why 
do we do better? Because the people who will get this increase--the $7 
an hour--are going to spend that money in the economy. It is a no-
brainer.
  My colleagues can make every argument about how giving back $120,000 
a year to the wealthiest among us will stimulate the economy. They call 
it ``trickle down.'' They love trickle down when it applies to the 
wealthy. Oh, give it to the wealthy; they will go out and spend it. The 
fact is, the wealthiest people already have the refrigerator or two; 
they already have the two homes or three; they already have the yachts. 
They already have what they need. They are not going to go out and 
spend it. They probably will sock it away.
  The bottom line is, when a worker gets another couple of bucks in his 
pocket and has to support his or her family, they will go to the store 
on the corner and spend the money, and it is going to give a boost to 
this economy. So let us not say that trickle down only works when you 
give to the rich. Let's also admit that the fact is, when you give to 
the middle class--and that is what I support, middle-class tax cuts and 
tax cuts to the working poor--you are really going to drive consumer 
spending. We know that low-income workers and moderate-income workers 
put their earnings right back into this economy, and they don't even 
have time to think about it because they have to buy clothes for the 
kids and food for the table. They will spend 100 percent of that 
increase; whereas, the wealthier taxpayers are unlikely to put that 
windfall back into the consumer-driven economy.
  To just sum up my remarks--and I know the Senator from Massachusetts 
is going to add mightily to these arguments--let me say this. We are 
doing a welfare bill. Everybody wants to see people get off welfare and 
go to work. Every one of us should also want to make sure that when 
people get into

[[Page 5685]]

the workforce and they work hard, their work is rewarded, their work 
means something, and they won't be stuck in poverty forever if they are 
stuck in a minimum-wage job.
  Let us show not only our compassion, let us show our respect for 
work; let us show our understanding of economics.
  I have a degree in economics. Granted, it was a long time ago. I was 
a stockbroker and it was a long time ago.
  I know when you put money in the hands of people who need to spend 
it, it is going right back into the economy. This particular amendment 
has all the attributes we should all want to see. It will be a stimulus 
to the economy. It will get people out of poverty. It will set a 
standard for the rest of the States. It is fair, it is overdue, and the 
time is now.
  I commend my colleague from Massachusetts. This is his initiative. He 
knows how much I care about this issue and is willing to share it with 
me. I am so honored to have my name associated with this amendment. I 
am very hopeful we can come together today and adopt it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, there is no doubt we are going to 
have a vote on minimum wage sometime, maybe on this bill or at least on 
some other bill. It is one thing to ask for an agreement to vote on a 
nongermane amendment--the majority party has the responsibility of 
getting work done, although we are cognizant of the fact we do not get 
anything done in this body if it is not bipartisan. We want to move 
this legislation along because it is so important to moving people out 
of poverty.
  As I said yesterday, some are on the edge of society, out of sight 
and out of mind, if they are on welfare. They are never going to move 
out of poverty if they are on welfare.
  As I said yesterday, and the Senator from Massachusetts misunderstood 
me, if you are ever going to move out of poverty, you have to be in the 
world of work. Being in the world of work does not automatically, even 
with an increase in the minimum wage, guarantee you are going to be out 
of poverty, but at least you have a chance of moving out of poverty; 
whereas on welfare you are destined to a lifetime of poverty.
  We are interested in moving this legislation along, and it would help 
a little bit reaching some understanding of voting on these amendments 
if we knew we were going to get this bill done and help the people who 
need to be helped.
  The point I want to make in regard to this amendment, and it is also 
in conjunction with the offering of nongermane amendments on other 
bills I have had before this Senate by the other party, is it seems to 
me they are always missing the point. They are always getting the cart 
before the horse.
  The bill before the Senate 2 weeks ago was a bipartisan bill that 
Senator Baucus and I worked out. It came out of our committee with all 
the Democrats supporting it. It encourages the creation of jobs in 
manufacturing by reducing the tax on manufacturing because that high 
tax on manufacturing is a disincentive to the creation of jobs. And it 
happens to be an incentive to outsourcing of jobs.
  Also, because there is a tariff against some of our products going 
into Europe, this would eliminate that tariff so we could be 
competitive. OK, that legislation is a bipartisan approach to creating 
jobs in manufacturing. So what does the other party do? They offer an 
amendment dealing with overtime regulations.
  They get the cart before the horse because the first thing we have to 
do is create jobs for people to get overtime. That legislation stalled 
because of nongermane amendments.
  Now we have what is a legitimate subject of discussion--but somewhere 
else--increasing the minimum wage. That has been a legitimate point of 
discussion since the 1920s, and it has been the law in this country 
since 1938. Nobody denies that is a worthy subject of discussion. 
Again, another example of getting the cart before the horse is that we 
are talking about getting people who are on welfare, not working, a 
job. Let's get them in the world of work.
  We have Members on the other side of the aisle stalling this 
legislation with nongermane amendments.
  We have to put the priorities where the priorities ought to be: to 
help people get jobs and keep jobs so that all these other issues that 
are coming up will be applicable to more workers.
  I am going to address for a short time this issue of the situation of 
people on welfare and our opportunities to move them to work to 
emphasize the success of that program in the legislation we have had on 
the books since 1996 and to see if we cannot improve that legislation 
in the bill that is before the Senate and move forward with another 8 
years of success of moving people from welfare to work, giving them an 
opportunity to move up the economic ladder.
  The families who go on welfare are, obviously, very vulnerable and 
fragile families. They not only need a job, but they need support in 
moving from welfare to work. We are not going to dump them out in the 
cold cruel world of work. Legislation that is already on the books and 
is going to be improved by this bill is going to enhance their support. 
We have already demonstrated that with one overwhelming vote on more 
money for childcare. I have heard that a long time from that side of 
the aisle, as we have heard from a lot of Republicans. One would think 
they would want to pass this legislation to give people on welfare who 
are moving into work the support they need to get there. This 
legislation does it. But the shenanigans on the other side with 
nongermane amendments are holding that up.
  The average family on welfare has two children, and that average 
family is headed by a young woman. Most of these families are African 
American or Hispanic. Half of these families have a child under the age 
of 6, and we take into consideration in this legislation specific needs 
of families with children under 6.
  The women who head these families are desperately poor. That is what 
welfare does for people, it keeps them in poverty. These women who have 
these families, besides being desperately poor and, contrary to the way 
the argument over minimum wage was characterized, they are not working. 
That is why it is so important to get this legislation passed before 
you worry about minimum wage because we have to give them the support 
so they can get out there in the world of work so they can get the 
minimum wage in the first place.
  States are reporting to us that the majority of adults on welfare are 
not doing anything. In other words, they are not working and maybe not 
doing anything that will lead to work, as we are trying to help them do 
through this infrastructure of support, of helping with job training 
and education, with substance abuse and other problems families might 
have because it is quite obvious in the world of welfare, it is not a 
way to achieve self-sufficiency. Many of these adult recipients are not 
ready for full-time work, so discussions about working 40 hours do not 
really apply to this population. In fact, for a while the argument over 
welfare reform focused on President Bush's proposal to require adult 
recipients on welfare to be engaged in work activities for 40 hours a 
week. That outraged my Democratic colleagues, that the administration 
would propose raising the hours of activity, including work, to 40 
hours. Just as if out there in the world of work it isn't assumed, not 
anything less than 40 hours a week, for the most part. So it is 
somewhat ironic that we are here discussing a 40-hour work week 
scenario because, as I said, most of these adults on welfare are not 
working at all and if they are working they are surely not working full 
time.
  These are adults, and again they are mainly women, with multiple and 
often coexisting barriers to work. They may be the victims of domestic 
abuse. They may have substance abuse problems. Add all that together 
and you have people who need services that this legislation provides to 
get them ready to

[[Page 5686]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ``Attachment to the workforce'' means having a paycheck, a decent 
job.
  I believe this legislation is directly relevant to the underlying 
theme of the legislation. But I say to my friend from Iowa, if he wants 
to give me a time agreement on a separate bill and give us the 
assurance we will be able to consider it by the first of May, as an 
independent bill here on the floor of the Senate, with a time limit, I 
would be glad to urge my friend and colleague from California to 
withdraw the amendment and take that, if that is agreeable to the 
Senator. We are not trying to hold the bill down.
  I will propose a time limit on my amendment. It is now 10 after 3. I 
propose unanimous consent that we vote on this amendment at 3:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is in another 20 minutes. The point has been made 
about how this legislation is slowing the bill down. We indicated we 
are prepared to vote, at least in 20 minutes, on this legislation. We 
were prepared yesterday to vote on it. The problem is, it has been now 
7 years, 7 years where we have been denied the right to vote on it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sure the Senator would be happy to agree to a 5-
minute limit. The Senator from Iowa gets up and says this is a noble 
thing to raise the minimum wage, but you are holding up the welfare 
bill.
  We will vote on this in 60 seconds from now. The American people are 
for this. Does my friend agree the American people are fairminded and 
for this?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. The American people understand 
fairness. They believe if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the 
year, you should not have to live in poverty in the richest country in 
the world. The American people understand that is basically what we are 
talking about, fairness and respect for people who are doing a day's 
work. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of an increase in 
the minimum wage, and for actually a good deal higher wage than the one 
we are proposing.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will my friend yield for another question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. We are charged with giving pay increases to the Federal 
workforce. We do it every year, do we not?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Our colleagues accept it. I do not know of anyone who 
does not accept the automatic adjustment in their pay.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator not think it is an outrage? We work hard 
and we make a decent living. We get an automatic cost-of-living 
adjustment unless we stop it. Yet the same people who take a cost-of-
living adjustment for themselves won't give a small increase to the 
people at the bottom of the ladder who are trying so hard to make 
something of themselves and rise above problems, illness, and poverty--

[[Page 5687]]

sometimes for generations--and want to be able to get into the 
workforce.
  My colleague says Tommy Thompson says it is important that these be 
good jobs. I wonder if any of our colleagues could live on $10,800 a 
year. I do not think they could. I do not think so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for her comments.
  I want to point out a few facts on the increase in the minimum wage.
  This is the second longest period in the history of the minimum wage 
that Congress has ignored the plight of low-wage earners. The first 
time President Bush signed a minimum wage increase was in 1989. That 
was after 12 years of inaction. It has been 7 years since the last 
increase. It is long past time for Congress to prioritize the lowest 
workers.
  Let me give you a chart that makes the point which the Senator from 
California and I have tried to make over a period of time in this 
debate. Here we have people who are working hard but losing ground with 
the real value of the minimum wage. If we were to take effectively the 
year 2000 and use that as the equivalent, the minimum wage in 1966 
would have been $8.50. Even though now at $5.15 an hour, its purchasing 
power using 2000 dollars would be $4.98, which would be one the lowest 
levels it has been in the history of the minimum wage unless we 
increase it. Even going up to $7, it will still be lower than it was 
from 1968 until 1980, a period of some 12 years. This is a very modest 
increase without which we will reach the bottom in terms of real 
purchasing power.
  Let us take another indicator in terms of what the minimum wage is in 
relationship to a family of three. This is the red line representing 
what the poverty line has been, and that is for a family of three 
earning slightly below $16,000. This is the poverty. This represents 
the value of the minimum wage which we show for a family of three--well 
below the poverty line.
  Let us ask ourselves, What about those people receiving the minimum 
wage? Are they working? If we go from 1979 to the year 2000 and look at 
the minimum wage--this is the bottom 40 percent of U.S. family income--
we find these workers in the bottom 40 percent are working more than 
400 hours. The average worker in this country is working longer than 
any other industrial nation in the world. These are hard-working people 
who are trying to make do the best they can.
  We find African Americans are working even longer and harder. 
Hispanics are working even longer and harder. These are minimum wage 
workers in the bottom percentile. They are working long and working 
hard trying to make ends meet. And they can't do it.
  We have seen over the period of the last 3 years the increase in the 
number of people who are living in poverty. It was 31 million in the 
year 2000. In 2002, it is more than 34 million. There is a direct 
result of this administration's economic policy. Three million more 
Americans are living in poverty. That represents today more than 34 
million people living in poverty, including 12 million children. More 
than 400,000 children today are living in poverty compared to the year 
2000. We have had no increase in the minimum wage. We are trying to do 
something about it.
  This bill does nothing in terms of raising the income of some of 
these families. This proposal will make a difference in terms of 
income.
  We will probably have those come on the floor as they usually do and 
say, Senator, this is very interesting, but we know if we raise the 
minimum wage we are going to see the result of increasing unemployment. 
There will be two reasons in opposition. I have been debating minimum 
wage increases since I have been in the Senate. These are the two 
standard ones.
  First they say if you raise the minimum wage, we will see an increase 
in unemployment. That is not true. We can show it. I will reference the 
figures.
  Second, the last issue is inflation. I will address that quickly 
because I want to get to the real issue; that is, what is happening to 
these families who are living in poverty. That is the real issue; 
particularly what is happening to the children who are living in 
poverty.
  That is the real issue. What is happening to them in terms of hunger 
is the real issue. Let us get rid of these issues quickly; that is, 
increasing the minimum wage does not cause unemployment. We increased 
it in September 1996, and we increased it in 1997.
  This red column is where unemployment was in January of 1998. That is 
obviously almost 2 years after the increase in 1996 and a few months 
after the increase in 1997. These are fairly significant figures in 
terms of unemployment.
  Look at the national figure--5.2 percent in 1996, 4.7 percent in 
1997, and 4.7 in 1998. That is exactly the same 4.7 percent. That is 
after the last increase in the minimum wage.
  It was true among African Americans.
  You will hear the argument: That is fine, generally, but the Senator 
and Senator Boxer don't understand this has a particular adverse impact 
on African Americans. That is not true. This chart shows, looking back 
to 1996 and the last major increases, unemployment virtually remained 
stable. That is true with regard to the Hispanics and it is true with 
regard to teens. Let us dismiss that argument in terms of unemployment.
  The other issue they will raise is, Well, this increase in the 
minimum wage is going to be an inflator in terms of our economy.
  Listen to this: This increase in the minimum wage represents less 
than one-fifth of 1 percent of wages of all workers in the country. 
Inflator? I hope they are going to have a better argument than that. 
They can't make the argument, although they will try. They will say: 
Add that increase to minimum wage and you will get inflation; and, 
think of all the people who will pay with inflation. You will increase 
unemployment among minorities. All of those arguments have been 
answered in spades. There is no economic argument in opposition to this 
unless you are trying to squeeze these workers even harder in order to 
try and exploit them even further.
  I will point out the real issue and its impact on the most vulnerable 
population. We know today that America's children are more likely to 
live in poverty than Americans in any other age group. The U.S. child 
poverty rate is substantially higher, two to three times higher, than 
that of most other major western industrial nations. Isn't that a fine 
situation?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be happy to yield. After 5 or 6 minutes more of 
my presentation, I will be glad to yield for questions.
  The child poverty rate is substantially higher, two to three times 
higher than most other western industrial nations. Reducing child 
poverty is one of the best investments Americans can make in their 
Nation's future.
  More children will enter school ready to learn; we will have more 
successful schools; there will be fewer school dropouts; we will have 
better child health with less strain on the hospitals and public health 
systems; we will have less stress on the juvenile justice system; we 
will have less child hunger and malnutrition.
  The fact is, the number of children living in poverty and the number 
of children going hungry every single day has increased significantly 
over the period of the last 3 years.
  The bottom line is, 3 million children have parents who would benefit 
from a minimum wage increase. We have an opportunity to do something 
about the 12 million American children living in poverty and the 
400,000 children more living in poverty today than were living in 
poverty 2 years ago. We can make a difference because so many of these 
children are living in families with minimum wage earnings. That is the 
issue.
  We hear the arguments on the other side, and we can answer those in 
terms of inflation and unemployment. Those questions have been 
answered. I will not take the time unless we are challenged on the 
issues, including historical unemployment figures and all the rest.
  This is about children. It is about women. As I mentioned, and then I 
will

[[Page 5688]]

yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, this issue is about women because 
61 percent of those who earn the minimum wage are women. It is about 
children. We know that 3 million children live in families whose parent 
is working in a minimum wage job. So it is about women and children. It 
is about civil rights because a great number of these minimum wage 
workers are men and women of color. It is about fairness because 
Americans understand if you want to work 40 hours a week and can work 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you should not have to live in 
poverty. Americans understand that.
  The final point I make, these minimum wage workers are men and women 
of dignity and pride. Too often around here we say: Minimum wage 
workers, we have other things to do. These are some of the hardest 
working, most decent men and women we have in this country, who take a 
sense of pride in the work they do, which is menial, tough, repetitive 
work--cleaning out the buildings of American industry, also working as 
assistants to teachers, working in nursing homes, looking after the 
elderly people of this country. This is hard, difficult, challenging 
work, but they take a sense of pride in it.
  We have refused to increase the minimum wage now for 7 years. As I 
have pointed out, this chart shows the history of the increases in the 
minimum wage. It is not a partisan matter. Going back to 1938, we have 
the increases under President Roosevelt and President Truman. President 
Eisenhower increased the minimum wage in 1955. President Kennedy did in 
1961; Lyndon Johnson in 1966; President Ford did it in 1974 three 
different times, for 1974, 1975, and 1976. President Ford, a 
Republican, did it. President Carter, in 1977; President Bush I did it 
in 1989; President Clinton in 1996.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. That is why it is so difficult for 
many to understand why those on the other side have refused the 
opportunity to even get a vote. I welcome the chance that we will have 
this time to get a vote.
  I point out, and then I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
what moving up to $7 an hour means to a family earning the minimum 
wage. It is the equivalent of 2 years of childcare. It is more than 2 
years of health care for that family. It is full tuition for a 
community college degree. It is a year and a half of heat and 
electricity. It is more than a year of groceries, and more than 9 
months of rent. It is real money for real people who are working hard, 
playing by the rules, and are waiting for this body to take some 
action.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
makes an important point about what we should be doing to reduce 
poverty.
  The Senator from Massachusetts made statements that increasing the 
minimum wage has an impact on child poverty. I have not seen a chart 
that indicates that. If the Senator could put up the chart when the 
minimum wage increases went into effect, my question is--we are on the 
welfare reform bill. This welfare reform bill has had a dramatic impact 
on child poverty. In fact, if you look at the chart, it shows the 
increases in the minimum wage--I will have a chart that compares with 
that; we have dueling charts that work in concert. The Senator shows 
where the minimum wage was at very high levels that happened to be in 
about this area. I am using Black child poverty, but obviously that is 
the worst case scenario. During the highest level of poverty among 
African Americans, we had a high minimum wage.
  All throughout this time--in fact, as you suggested, the minimum wage 
actually came down in real value--what else came down? The rate of 
Black child poverty.
  Now, I would not suggest that the minimum wage was necessarily tied 
to that. What I would suggest is what happened was a fundamental change 
in welfare policy that started in the mid-1990s and accelerated in 1996 
by the Federal Government and has resulted in a huge decline in 
poverty, irrespective of what the minimum wage is.
  I make the argument that if the Senator wants to do something about 
helping child poverty, we should pass this welfare bill. Maybe there is 
a time and place to have the argument with respect to minimum wage, but 
I do not believe the evidence supports that increasing the minimum wage 
has any discernible impact on the poverty level, certainly among 
African American children and, I argue, across the board among children 
in general.
  Finally, the point I want to make, since----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is that a question? I am about to yield the floor 
generally, if you could get to the question. What is the question? I 
would be glad to answer.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. I want to make the point in the 
last 10 years, the child poverty rate has declined almost 30 percent. 
During that time there was one increase in the minimum wage, but there 
was a dramatic change in welfare.
  I ask the Senator, does he have any information that shows that the 
minimum wage actually does result in a decrease in child poverty? I 
think I have very conclusive evidence that changes in welfare policy 
have a dramatic impact on the reductions in child poverty.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the fact is self-evident and should be to 
all Members. We do not need charts. If you are making $5.50 an hour and 
you are the principal bread winner in the family with a child, that 
child will live in poverty. You can have all the charts in the world, 
but that is self-evident. That ought to be a given.
  We do not have to dispute that. I hope we would not have to dispute 
that. Those are the hard, difficult facts.
  The issues about the variance in terms of child poverty, obviously, 
when we have the dramatic expansion as during the period of the 1990s 
under President Clinton, we saw the creation of 22 million jobs. We saw 
that spill over into a reduction of child poverty. That is the answer. 
The fact is we have not seen that.
  In the last 3 years, we have seen a growth in poverty in the total 
number of people who are living in poverty, including children, because 
we have lost 3 million jobs--effectively maybe 2 million overall--but 2 
million jobs. The fact is, the new jobs that are being created are 
paying about 25 percent less than those they are replacing.
  With all respect to the Senator, the idea that at $5.15 an hour when 
you have a child or two children they are not going to be living in 
poverty escapes me completely. I do not think we need any chart to show 
that. That is fairly self-evident.
  I do not know what the situation is in Pennsylvania, but I do know in 
the other States I have visited in recent times, people cannot make it. 
At $5.15 an hour, how is a parent going to be able to go out and rent 
an apartment and provide food for their children? That does not make 
sense.
  The fact is, almost half of the new jobs that were being created for 
those who have moved off welfare now have disappeared. That is a 
different issue, and we could debate that, and I would be glad to. That 
is not what this amendment is about.
  This amendment is relevant to the underlying issue. As I have raised 
before with Secretary Thompson, the purpose of this bill is to try to 
get people into somewhat decent jobs.
  We raised this over 2\1/2\ years, up to $7 an hour, almost a living 
wage. We think in this country, at this time, this is something that is 
called for, and we are prepared to move ahead with it.
  I see the manager on this bill. We can either take some more time or 
we can try to move toward whatever outcome the floor managers would 
want. If we want some additional debate on it, we are glad to do so. 
But if you want to move toward a conclusion of it, we are glad to do so 
as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts 
is insincere about moving forward on both this minimum wage increase as 
well as moving forward on this bill. I will offer a unanimous consent 
request to do just that.

[[Page 5689]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow morning, at a 
time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with 
the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to back-to-back votes, first 
in relation to a Republican minimum wage amendment, to be followed by a 
vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, with no second degrees in 
order to either amendment; provided further that the bill then be 
limited to germane amendments, and at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 1, 
the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, 
and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no 
intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask consent that following 
passage of the bill, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Before the Senator from Massachusetts comments on this request, I 
would suggest what this unanimous consent request says is the Senator 
from Massachusetts will have a vote on his amendment, the Republicans 
will have a vote on a side-by-side amendment, we will go to final 
passage on this bill, with germane amendments being offered and voted 
on in between that time; and after passage of the bill, this bill will 
go to conference, and we will have an opportunity for the House and the 
Senate to work their will and to actually get this welfare 
reauthorization passed for another 6-year period.
  So if the Senator from Massachusetts is sincere about getting the 
minimum wage increase voted on here in the Senate, and not holding up 
this piece of legislation, I would hope he would be willing to accept 
this unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for commenting on my 
sincerity because I indicated yesterday I was interested in a 15-minute 
time limitation on this amendment, and it was objected to by the 
Senator from Iowa. We indicated we were willing to vote at 3:30 today, 
and it was objected to.
  So now the Senator, if he wants to amend that request--since these 
are directly related to the issues of employment--to include an 
amendment with a 1-hour time limitation on the issue of overtime, an 
amendment with a 1-hour time limitation in terms of unemployment 
compensation, and then to have relevant amendments and time limitations 
on those amendments of up to an hour, I would not object to that.
  So, Mr. President, I object, and I offer a unanimous consent request 
along the lines I mentioned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the modified unanimous consent request of the 
Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I think it goes to state the case that 
the Senator from Massachusetts, in offering these other ideas, is in 
fact not interested in the Senate working its will on welfare reform, 
which is the bill before us, but bringing the political motives and 
debates that are surrounding the Presidential campaigns here on the 
floor of the Senate, and to have sort of ``message theme'' amendments 
on a very serious piece of legislation that needs to be passed to 
create opportunities so this line on this chart can continue to go 
down.
  Because what we have with the welfare reform reauthorization bill is 
something that is going to continue to move people out of poverty, to 
create better opportunities for work. What the Senator from 
Massachusetts is suggesting is, instead of that, we are going to extend 
unemployment benefits. What we need to do is create better incentives 
and better education, training, and an enormous amount of childcare to 
help people go to work, not extend unemployment benefits.
  Again, we are in this situation where the Senator from Massachusetts 
said: Well, if we just do this. Now it is: Well, you need to do this, 
and this, and then this. The bottom line is, we have a lot of 
substantive debate that can and should occur on this legislation. If 
there are relevant amendments, we would be happy to debate them. But 
the amendments the Senator from Massachusetts now wants to bring in are 
not relevant, and, therefore, I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes 
talking about this bill and the importance of why we need to move to 
the passage of it.
  The Senator put up his chart of minimum wage increases. I voted for 
those minimum wage increases. I would vote for a minimum wage increase 
in the next 10 minutes if we could have gotten that agreement. I would 
have been happy to vote on a side by side, and I would have supported 
Senator McConnell's amendment, which would have raised the minimum 
wage, and would have raised it by over a dollar over the next couple of 
years.
  I think it is important that we talk about this issue. But I think 
the most important thing we can do for the poor in America--and I found 
it remarkable the Senator from Massachusetts can look at his chart, 
that shows the minimum wage at very high levels in real dollars, during 
a time when child poverty, and particularly African-American poverty, 
has been at its highest and he says it only makes sense if you have 
high minimum wage, you are going to have low poverty rates.
  Tell the people living during this time who were experiencing high 
poverty rates how much sense it made. Because in reality it made no 
sense because it was not happening. A high minimum wage does not 
guarantee low poverty. What, in many cases, a high minimum wage 
guarantees is unemployment and very high rates of poverty.
  What we have is a situation where we had higher rates of the minimum 
wage. We also had a welfare system that was debilitating on the poor, 
designed by the very same people who think the minimum wage is the 
answer to poverty.
  It is the same economic team, folks, which believes Government 
micromanaging of every person's life and business in America is the way 
to make sure everybody achieves. Guess what. It did not work. It did 
not work. What worked? Work. Yes, what every American knows. But there 
is a commonsense deficit in this city. What every American knows, as 
common sense, that work works to improve people's economic status in 
life, has been lost here in the Senate, was lost for many years when it 
came to the issue of poverty in America.
  And, oh, I remember, sitting in the chair where Senator Grassley sits 
today, and sitting in this chair at times in 1995 and 1996, when scores 
of Members who designed the welfare system in the 1960s and 1970s, who 
designed the minimum wage increases in the 1960s and 1970s, who said 
that was the answer to solving poverty in America, that was the answer 
to solving poverty in America, came to the floor and said: How dare 
you. How dare you suggest we require people to work. How dare you 
suggest we put a time limit--a time limit--on people on welfare. Don't 
you understand? These people are poor. That is a disability greater 
than any other disability people encounter in life--at least if you 
listen to the other side, that is what you would think they were 
saying.
  President Bush uses the term ``the soft bigotry of low 
expectations.'' There was no soft bigotry. This was hard bigotry of low 
expectations. If you were poor, you needed our help, you needed 
Government to give you dollars, you needed Government to raise your 
wages. And that was going to solve the poverty problems in America. It 
did not work. What worked? Work.
  Here we are in the Senate Chamber. I find it absolutely ironic. We 
have Senator Grassley standing up for the new war on poverty, his bill 
out of committee, increasing the work requirement, yes, increasing 
support for women who are trying to get work, including daycare and 
other services. On the other side we have, no, we need the Government 
to fix the economy and

[[Page 5690]]

raise the minimum wage. It is a classic difference in the perspective 
of what the role of Government should be. We stand here today and say, 
you can debate all you want about the minimum wage. I am not suggesting 
it is a bad thing, but it is not a panacea. It bears no relationship 
historically to reductions in poverty. Why? Because most of the people 
who get the minimum wage jobs, as the Senator from Iowa said, in the 
past are not heads of households; they are teenagers, many of whom are 
in very wealthy homes. That is who we are helping with minimum wage 
increases primarily. We are helping some others, but if you really want 
to help those who have not had the chances economically, if you really 
want to lift people out of poverty, then work and developing and 
nurturing a system that encourages people to get their lives together 
and to get into the workplace to achieve is the answer. That is what 
this bill does, and more.
  That is why I am so excited about this bill because we have found out 
that, yes, work works. This is the lowest rate of African-American 
child poverty ever recorded in America. By the way, in the last year, 
2002 and 2003, yes, because of the recession, black poverty among 
children went up, but very slightly, 1 or 2 percent, during a time of a 
lot of job loss.
  If you look at the other statistics, for example, one that probably 
mirrors this, as far as high rates of poverty, had to do with single 
mothers never married. What we saw was single mothers never married, 
historically the rate of employment among single never-married mothers 
was around 40 to 42 percent historically. It was an intractable problem 
that people said could never be fixed. Then we passed the welfare 
reform bill in 1996. Now 63 percent of single, never-married mothers 
are employed.
  That is remarkable to see those kinds of dynamic shifts. By the way, 
that number has not changed in the last 2 years. The employment levels 
have remained the same as they have basically within the welfare 
system.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has said things have been terrible the 
last few years in the job market and people in poverty have been hurt. 
The bottom line is, the welfare rolls continue to be low. They have not 
shot back up.
  In fact, I was reading an editorial from a paper I generally don't 
read editorials from, my hometown paper--not necessarily fond of me. 
They happened to write a lucid editorial, sort of the blind squirrel 
phenomenon. They wrote an editorial in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 
``Shrinking Welfare, the Statistical Mystery of a Smaller Dole.'' They 
comment on the fact that here we are, during 3 years where there has 
not been dramatic job growth, and yet the welfare rolls are not going 
back. They were sort of at a quandary as to why.
  They say: Although welfare reform still has problems, single mothers 
often have considerable difficulty obtaining childcare--after we passed 
now $7 billion; we have over doubled the amount of daycare that is 
going to be available under this bill--these numbers suggest it is 
working.
  The numbers suggest welfare is working. For whatever reason--gosh, I 
can't imagine; it is again another commonsense deficit--more people are 
trying to do for themselves instead of asking government to do for 
them.
  Go figure. Let me repeat this. For whatever reason, more people are 
trying to do for themselves instead of asking government to do for 
them. Even if the experts can't explain it, they conclude that is a 
good thing.
  Do you know what. That is a good thing, what we did in 1996, despite 
the protestations, despite the charts with pictures of people standing 
in bread lines, sleeping on grates, of just absolutely cataclysmic 
predictions of what would happen to rates of poverty, which were around 
this level at the time, we had projections that black poverty among 
children would skyrocket, that women would be thrown off welfare and 
not be able to raise their children, that we would have dramatic 
changes and riots in our poorest neighborhoods because of this welfare 
reform proposal that was being put forward. I will read some of my 
colleagues' predictions of what would happen to poverty.
  Guess what. They were wrong. Those of us who stood here and said, 
have faith in the poor in America that they, too, want a better life 
for themselves and their children, and they are willing to work for it, 
if given the incentives and the opportunity to do so, if given the 
tools to make work work, they, too, will pursue the American dream, we 
had faith in them. Too many others have faith only in the government to 
take care of them.
  Having talked to numerous people who have been on welfare--in fact, 
in my office in my State, I have hired nine people from the welfare 
rolls. They have worked through all the problems, and there are 
problems in someone transitioning off of welfare. I can tell you that 
every single one thanked me for having faith in them, thanked me for 
passing a bill that didn't say that we needed the government to be 
there to protect them and keep them in poverty and dependent upon it, 
but trusted them that, if given the tools, that they, too, could take 
care of their family and feel better about it every day, knowing full 
well it would be a struggle and continues to be a struggle.
  But there is honor in the struggle to provide for your family. There 
is honor. There is dignity. There is character in struggling to provide 
for you and your family.
  Millions of women--predominantly women; welfare is predominantly a 
woman's program, a single-mother program--have courageously gone out 
and fought for their families because we gave them the tools and 
incentive to do so. They have changed their lives for the better, and 
they have given their children a hope, a model that they can build a 
life on, that they can build on the success of their mother who 
overcame addiction.
  A young woman spoke to our Republican conference this morning from 
here in DC, incarcerated many times, addicted, so bad that she lost her 
three children to foster care. Then welfare reform came around, made 
her go to work. And today she has her three children back.
  She not only got a job, she now has a small business where she 
employs four people in town. She didn't do it with an SBA loan or any 
Government help at all; she saved a little money and started her own 
business. In the last 6 months, she got married. You have to believe in 
people. You have to believe that poverty is not the ultimate disabler.
  That is why this bill is so important. That is why this bill has to 
be passed, because we have 28 States right now, where all of the 
requirements that we have put on the States to have work programs, to 
get people transitioned off of the rolls, to provide the support 
services to transition people into the economic mainstream in 28 
States--that incentive is now gone. So in 28 States in America, we are 
back to the old AFDC days. That will have an impact.
  Let me tell you what one of the reasons is I am so excited about this 
bill. It is the next step in welfare. We knew--those of us who helped 
design the 1996 act--this was the first step, that work was the most 
important thing. There were other important things, but we understood 
work was the central focus. But there were other causes and concerns we 
wanted to deal with.
  Senator Grassley had this chart up. It is a chart by Haskins and 
Sawhill. They are from the Brookings Institute. I think even the 
Senator from Massachusetts would admit that the Brookings Institute is 
not a conservative think tank. It is seen as the left-leaning think 
tank in town--or one of them. Elizabeth Sawhill is a former Clinton 
poverty expert. Ron Haskins happens to be--I don't know how he got in 
there--he is a fairly conservative guy. We have our differences. 
Anyway, Ron and Elizabeth worked together on this. This is a peer-
reviewed study that isolates factors of poverty. This is the official 
poverty rate, 13 percent. Remember what we said back in 1996: Work 
works. You have to get people into work. That is the best cure for 
poverty, the best way to turn your life

[[Page 5691]]

around. That is the best medicine for children--to see mom get up every 
day and go to work, instead of receiving a welfare check. Guess what. 
It works. With full-time work, poverty rates go down to 7.5 percent.
  The other thing this bill does is understand we have to keep this 
and, in fact, improve upon it. We are going to increase the work 
requirement by 20 percent. Interestingly enough, we increased the 
amount of daycare by 100 percent. So this is, again, Washington logic. 
We are going to require people to work 20 percent more, so we need 100 
percent in daycare to pay for that. Nevertheless, there are other 
factors involved that reduce poverty.
  Marriage. The President's initiative is, again, common sense. It is 
an understanding that the poverty rates are lower among married couples 
than they are among single heads of households. So one of the things 
the President wanted to do with his marriage initiative is to create at 
least a positive or nurturing atmosphere for couples who enter the 
welfare system with the intention of getting married to actually get 
married and raise a family.
  There was a study done by a professor at Princeton that asked the 
question upon paternity establishment: Are you in a relationship? What 
I mean by paternity establishment is that most States figured out the 
best time to establish who the father of the child is is in a hospital; 
so most States have adopted that as a way of establishing who the 
father is, and then using that to get the father to pay child support. 
That was something that was a very big contentious point in the welfare 
bill of 1996. We required paternity establishment in the States, that 
they have an active program to find out who these fathers were. This 
was the whole deadbeat dad issue and the fact that there were enormous 
amounts of uncollected child support. So we did a whole lot of things 
on child support enforcement and paternity establishment because there 
was a huge number of women on welfare who either refused to, or don't, 
for whatever reason, identify the father of the child. From my 
perspective, to try to get the father involved in the child's life, I 
thought paternity establishment was going to be very important.
  The States have a different view. They saw it as a way to get cash--
establish paternity so we could get child support and we could get 
money. They were not particularly interested in whether dad did 
anything to raise the child other than to send the check so the State 
could get some of the money. They would then reduce the benefits to the 
mother in proportion to the child support being paid by the father. 
There is an incentive for the States to find out who the father was and 
attach wages, if necessary, and get the child support flowing into the 
State coffers.
  That is not exactly the most nurturing conclusion that I thought 
would occur by finding out who father was. I had this funny idea that 
maybe if they found out who the father was and the father became 
involved in a legal way with his child, he might take some 
responsibility for that child. That is not, unfortunately, what has 
happened. There are a lot of factors involved, including a culture in 
many communities that is not nurturing of fathers taking responsibility 
for their children--at least in the popular culture. In a segment of 
the popular culture, it is not reinforced that fathers should take 
responsibility for their children. It is a misogynist popular culture 
that abuses women in song, in video, and in many other ways, and 
teaches you not to take responsibility for your actions. So the popular 
culture, matched up with the State that was just interested in money, 
has resulted in incredibly high rates of absent fathers.
  What are we going to do about that? What should we do? People say, 
Senator, what is the Government's role in marriage--to encourage people 
to marry? Why doesn't the Government stay out of it? I argue that the 
Government is already in it because, prior to welfare's inception--and 
you can say this is a good or bad thing, but it is a fact--prior to 
welfare's inception, one of the reasons mothers and fathers stayed 
together was because there wasn't any money to support the child at 
all. The Government didn't help raise children at all. There was no 
money. That is when sort of a popular joke regarding the shotgun 
wedding came about, because mom had no means to support herself and her 
children. So families required fathers to stick it out.
  Many will say that was not the optimal situation. I agree. But ask 
the question now, are we better off now? Are the children better off 
now? As the Senator from Massachusetts said, it is about the children, 
isn't it? Are the children better off now in this culture?
  I would make the argument that the Federal Government has already 
done its part in taking sides on the marriage debate, and that is, it 
has been an enabler of the dissolution of marriage because it is no 
longer required to support and raise your child.
  Again, you can argue positives and negatives about it, but that is a 
fact. Economically, it simply was not possible 50 years ago. 
Economically, it is a viable option--I am not saying the best option. I 
am not saying better or worse. All I am saying is it is an option that 
was not available before. So the Government has taken sides on the 
issue of marriage.
  What I am suggesting, and what this bill suggests, is the Government 
try to shift gears to be somewhat neutral on the issue. What do I mean 
by that? A researcher from Princeton I started talking about did a 
survey asking whether mothers and fathers at the time of paternity 
establishment were in a relationship. Actually, a very high percentage 
said yes at the time. I think it was roughly 80 percent said they were 
currently in a relationship.
  They were asked the question: Do you have any intention of getting 
married? Again, a very high percentage of these young parents or new 
parents said, yes, they actually were contemplating marriage--over 50 
percent. What happened?
  By the way, what did the Government do during this time? The 
Government basically said: OK, dad, sign here, make sure you establish 
paternity. Thank you very much. Fold up that paper, put it in the 
briefcase, and back down to the welfare office. File the paper. Make 
sure we get dad a child support order so we can get our money. That is 
the Government's role financially.
  The Government says marriage is not such a bad--no, no, we are not 
going to prejudice these folks; let them do whatever they want as long 
as we get our money--as long as we get our money.
  What happened a year later? The researcher from Princeton--again, not 
a conservative researcher--asked the question a year later of these 
same couples. Guess what. Very few got married. I think 10 percent were 
still together in one form or another.
  What happened? I think it is fairly obvious what happened. It is a 
tough situation for an unmarried couple, particularly, again, given the 
popular culture. It is a very tough situation to work through the 
difficulties of raising a newborn and trying to keep a relationship 
together. Even people who are married have a tough time. A newborn is a 
big change in your life. Having had seven children, I can tell you, 
having a newborn in the house is a big change. When you are struggling 
economically, when you may be living at home or may be living in poor 
accommodations or maybe not living in the same place, this is a very 
stressful and difficult situation. People, in many cases, do not have a 
heck of a lot of role models around to help them get through this 
difficult time in their life.
  I do not think anybody here is surprised to hear these numbers--I 
would not think they would be--that a very small percentage of people 
in this situation end up getting married. Why aren't you surprised? I 
think we need to think about that. Why were you not surprised when I 
said that? That is the expectation, is it not? That is what we expect.
  If we expect it, what do you think the people involved in the 
situation expect over time? We are trying to change that dynamic. We 
are not trying to force anything down anybody's throat. All we are 
suggesting is that at

[[Page 5692]]

the time of paternity establishment, instead of folding up that little 
paper that now has the signature that is going to create financial 
liability for that man for at least some period of time, we ask one 
additional question: Are you interested in getting married?
  If both answer yes, for example, what a caseworker could do is pull 
out a card and say: Here is a card and here is a list of 10 people, 10 
organizations who do marriage counseling. If you call one of these 
organizations and you show up for an appointment, we will pay for your 
counseling to help you get through this difficult time and stressful 
time in your life.
  Believe it or not, there are people who are saying this is a right-
wing agenda to try to get people to get married, as if that is a 
horrible thing to actually have mothers and fathers of children 
actually get married; that is some sort of secret plan to destroy the 
world. I do not understand it.
  What we are trying to do is help two people who at the time have a 
commitment and have a product of that commitment called a child who 
needs love and support from as many people as that child can get--
optimally, a mother and a father. All we are saying is give this child 
a chance; hopefully, a better chance. At least try. At least try to 
help people who want to be helped. Not force it on them, just try to 
help people who have, at least at the moment of the time they are 
looking at the face of this new creation, who actually still dream and 
hope of a better life with that child and together to pour some water 
on that seed to nurture it instead of folding up that piece of paper 
and saying: I got your money. That is all I came for. I am here from 
the Government, and I got your money. I got your signature, and that is 
all I am here to do. And look down at that child and say: I know what 
is going to happen, but what do I care? I have no requirement to care 
about whether mothers and fathers stay together and raise and nurture 
that child. It is not my job.
  I will be offering an amendment, if we get a chance to offer 
amendments, to actually increase to the President's budget figure the 
amount of money in this program because I do believe that Government 
should be on the side of children in creating at least a chance for 
them to be raised in a stable two-parent family.
  What happens to the poverty rate? If you increase the marriage rate, 
the poverty rate drops not some but very dramatically. So the keys in 
this legislation of work and marriage are the two strongest indicators 
of a reduction in poverty. The other factors many others suggest are 
keys to reducing poverty is increased education. It helps, but it is 
not anywhere as powerful as the focus of this bill. Reduced family 
size? Again, the more children you have the higher the chance you are 
going to be in poverty. So if you have fewer children, it helps--again, 
not as much as the focus of this bill. The interesting thing is, if you 
factor all these four things together, look what happens to the poverty 
level: Work; marriage, which allows in many cases the opportunity for 
education; and reduced family size--dramatic reduction in poverty. Can 
you imagine, for the longest time we didn't want to do this? And we 
still don't do this. The results are powerful.
  What do some on the other side still hold to? I underscore ``some'' 
because thankfully we have had bipartisan support in much of what we 
have done here. What do some on the other side see as the answer? Spend 
more money. If we want to get people out of poverty, just increase the 
amount of money you give people in poverty and, guess what, you get 
them out of poverty.
  Here is doubling the welfare benefit. If we doubled the welfare 
benefit, what would happen? Hardly any decrease in poverty. The Senator 
from Massachusetts might say it is obvious on its face, if we give 
people more money--in fact, it isn't that he might say it; yes, he did 
say it. He said it is obvious, if you give people more money, if you 
raise the minimum wage, of course poverty is going to go down. We are 
not talking about raising the minimum wage here; we are talking about 
doubling the welfare benefit. It makes barely a scratch. So I guess it 
isn't all that obvious, is it?
  I guess, just like the rest of us, people who are experiencing 
poverty in their lives are as complex as the rest of us and have a lot 
of factors that go into whether they are poor, not just how much money 
comes in the door. There are a lot of factors that go into whether 
people rise in society. What we know works is work and marriage and 
families. We know that works. You know what. America knows it works. 
That is obvious. It is obvious to me and hopefully it will be obvious 
to my colleagues as we proceed here today. Instead of focusing on 
minimum wage--again, it has its time and place, but there is no 
evidence at all that has been put forward that it does anything to 
reduce poverty. In fact, straight cash assistance--not identical with 
the minimum wage, but the same idea behind it--doesn't significantly 
affect poverty.
  What we are doing in this bill works. It works from an analytical 
point of view; it works from a moral point of view; it works from a 
commonsense point of view. It is all about what we Americans value and 
understand and revere--at least we have throughout the history of this 
country.
  So I am hopeful we can move forward, that we can get an agreement to 
somehow or another dispose of the Kennedy amendment, either in this 
bill or at some future time, and move to passage of this very important 
piece of legislation which is going to have a dramatic impact in taking 
this number and numbers like it, the poverty rate among Black children, 
of all children--it has not just been among African-American children; 
it has been among all children as well as mothers--down, and down 
further.
  We have an obligation if we know something is working to make it 
permanent and extend it and make it better, to do more of what we know 
works. That is what this bill does. I am hopeful the Senate will give 
its support to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             ENERGY PRICES

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

[[Page 5693]]

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

                               Exhibit 1

                                              National Association


                                        of Convenience Stores,

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

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


                IRAQI AND AFGHANISTAN LIBERATION MEDALS

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to a bill to honor 
our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who have served and 
continue to serve their country by working for a fee, independent and 
stable Iraq and a new Afghanistan. These missions have been difficult 
and the cost has been high; nearly 600 Americans have been killed and 
almost 3,000 Americans have been injured in Iraq, while more than 500 
Americans have been injured and more than 100 U.S. servicemen and women 
have been lost in Afghanistan.
  More than a year after the initial invasion, nearly 110,000 troops 
are still stationed in Iraq, working to build a new, stable beacon of 
freedom in the region. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is 
turning out to be the most significant military occupation and 
reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. We cannot 
understate the importance of the work being done there today.
  The administration's focus on Iraq leaves the mission in Afghanistan 
incomplete. Despite constant progress there, the fighting is still not 
over. Recent assassinations of government officials, car bombings, and 
the lingering presence of terrorist forces and former Taliban fighters 
force thousands of our troops to stay in-country.
  For their courageous efforts, the Department of Defense has decided 
to award our brave young men and women with the Global War on Terrorism 
Expeditionary Medal--GWOT--and no other medal. This is despite the fact 
that GWOT medal is meant for any individual who has served overseas 
during the war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles 
of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
greater; therefore, along with my colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, 
Inhofe, and Lugar, I propose to correct this mistake by passing 
legislation authorizing the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in 
addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.
  While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's 
view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. 
These young men and women from active duty, National Guard and Reserves 
are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to 
be a patriot. We believe that what they are doing in Iraq and 
Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activities such 
as peacekeeping operations or no-fly zone enforcement.
  They continue to serve, even though they do not know when they will 
return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the 
constant threat to their lives and the tremendous hardships they face.
  There is a difference between an Expeditionary Medal and a Campaign 
medal. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications 
for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and Kosovo Campaign Medal. In 
order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you don't need 
to go to war. You only need to be ``placed in such a position that in 
the opinion of the Joint Chief of Staff, hostile action by foreign 
armed forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.''
  To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard is higher. A military 
member must:

       Be engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally 
     hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed 
     opposition, regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or 
     while participating in the Operation, regardless of time, 
     [the service member] is wounded or injured and required 
     medical evacuation from the Area of Engagement.

  Many within the military agree that there is a difference. According 
to the Army Times, ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate 
rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal 
like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is 
designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in 
combat.
  Campaign medals matter.

       ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders 
     look first at his decorations and his physical fitness 
     score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if 
     he can hang. They show what you've done and how serious you 
     are,'' said Gunnery Sgt. James Cuneo. ``If you're a good 
     Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time. . . 
     .''

  My fellow colleagues, it is time.
  We must recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who 
liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army Specialist Joseph 
Hudson from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The 
Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being 
interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, 
Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow 
orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with

[[Page 5694]]

Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was 
liberated.
  We have also asked much from our Reserve and National Guard forces. 
The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment 
and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and Reservists currently on active 
duty.
  My colleagues, Senators Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Lugar, and I are 
committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We believe that current administration policy does a 
disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in 
addition to the GWOT medal, new decorations that characterize the real 
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, two that are distinctive and honor 
their sacrifice, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.
  What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been 
responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military 
forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and 
historically central role in authorizing military decoration. Our 
Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, 
including: the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Air Force Cross, the 
Navy Cross, the Army's Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star, 
and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
  We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to 
what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list 
includes the Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany 
Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the 
Korean Service Medal and the Prisoner of War Medal.
  The list goes on and on. The great men an women of our military 
forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is 
time to do our job and honor them with an award that truly stands for 
their heroic service, the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals.
  While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's 
view on the war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. 
These young men and women from Active Duty, from the National Guard, 
and from the Reserves, are all volunteers. They exemplify the very 
essence of what it means to be patriotic.
  It is extremely important that we take action. Many in this body will 
remember that we proposed to do this last year as we were considering 
the Defense authorization bill. Our effort was not successful, although 
many Senators voted to go ahead with this legislative provision. The 
administration was not in favor, and the amendment failed.
  I am glad we are able to reintroduce it this year. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with us to find an 
appropriate time when we can bring it up for a vote, or we can add it 
as an amendment to one of the bills that will be working its way 
through the Senate later this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak on the welfare reform bill.
  This has been an extraordinarily successful initiative which we began 
a few years ago. Its success is tied with the fact that States have 
been given a great deal more flexibility in the area of how they handle 
their welfare account. The fact is, we have set up as a purpose, as a 
government, that people who are on welfare will be given the 
opportunity, the skills, and the incentives to move off of welfare and 
move into a work environment, which is something that gives them 
personal credibility and personal self-respect, and at the same time 
assists us in reducing the public welfare rolls. It has been a huge and 
overwhelming success.
  One of the elements of moving off of welfare, of course, is the need 
of parents to have transitional support, especially single mothers as 
they go into the workforce while dealing with their children during the 
time they are working; in other words, some sort of childcare 
assistance.
  As part of this bill, we intend to offer an amendment for 
reauthorization of the Child Care Development Block Grant Program, 
called the Caring for Children Act of 2003.
  This amendment came out of the committee which I chair, the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pension Committee, unanimously. It came out with 
bipartisan support, obviously.
  It is an attempt to update our childcare block grant initiative and 
make it more meaningful for the issues of today. It also gives the 
dollars it needs to be effective.
  The bill will not only stress increased spending, it has $1 billion 
of new funding from the discretionary accounts.
  Earlier today, there was a vote on an initiative to add $6 billion 
over 5 years to the childcare development grant. That money would be 
mandatory, and it was not paid for; it was outside the budget. There 
was a euphemistic attempt to pay for it--a superficial attempt--
actually, what amounted to the ultimate shell game attempt as an offset 
which was cited and which has been used on, I believe, 17 different 
occasions as a claimed offset in this body.
  The real effect of the bill was to go way outside the budget and add 
a huge new tranche of dollars beyond the budget which would be fine had 
it been realistically offset. But it wasn't.
  This bill has in it a true increase which is an appropriate increase 
of $1 billion over that period of the bill. That is a significant 
infusion of new funds. Plus it addresses some of the concerns of the 
program, one of the concerns being as children are getting childcare 
they should also be getting some sort of development in the capacity of 
learning. Obviously, these are very young children. But they should 
have a learning component in their childcare experience, something that 
will put them in a position where they will be able to be at a level 
where their peers are--other young children who are receiving 
childcare.
  It has language in it which encourages the States to include a 
voluntary guideline initiative in the area of prereading and language 
skills. The absolutely critical essence of learning is language skills 
and the ability to do phonics and identify letters and be able to get 
ready for reading. This bill has in it that language.
  It also has in it a commitment to low-income parents. At least 70 
percent of these dollars has the flow-through stage, actually, to the 
parents--in many cases a single parent. So the parent is getting the 
benefits. And we aren't simply siphoning it off into the bureaucracy, 
which often happens, regrettably, through administrative overhead but, 
rather, directing this money to the hands of the parents, especially 
the low-income parent so the parent can use this to assist them in 
transitioning off the welfare rolls by taking care of their children 
during the workday.
  It gives parents a significant amount of choice. They can use 
different daycare types of facilities. Some which are faith-based are 
allowed to be used, or they can use it even if it is being provided by 
relatives and neighbors. That is important.
  Further, the bill addresses a need to make sure that States focus on 
improving the quality of childcare. This is a very significant concern 
that many of us have, which is that a lot of the childcare today is, 
unfortunately, not of a quality that gives the child the support 
services they need or the academic assistance they might need in order 
to be brought up to speed with peers who are in different childcare 
delivery systems.
  It allows States to set aside a certain percentage of the money in 
order to assess quality and try to improve quality. This gives the 
States more flexibility in this area, but it also gives them an impetus 
to go in the right direction.
  It is, therefore, a bill which does a lot of good.
  As I mentioned, it was reported out of our committee unanimously. It 
will be, hopefully, added to the base bill either by a formal vote or 
as part of the managers' amendment.
  But we have to get back to the fundamental quandary which confronts 
us today, which is that the base welfare reform bill that is pending 
before the Congress is being held up by the other side of the aisle.

[[Page 5695]]

  This is becoming a pattern of obstruction which we have seen 
throughout this session of the Congress, and it appears its intensity 
is actually increasing. Bills are coming to the floor now which are 
important pieces of legislation on which there is a general consensus.
  As I mentioned, this language reported out of our committee to 
strengthen the block grants for childcare was reported unanimously. Yet 
these bills are being stopped dead in their tracks by the insistence of 
the other side of the aisle to put on these bills extraneous issues 
which are of a politically charged nature, the purpose of which is not 
to pass them but simply to generate a political vote which can be used 
in the coming election.
  We all do that. We all set up the political votes. But they should 
not be used as aggressively as they are today by the Democratic Party 
as a means of stopping legitimate legislation. The obstruction coming 
from the other side of the aisle is unconscionable.
  Last week, for example, a bill which would have corrected the 
problems which many of our manufacturers in this country are going to 
confront, specifically a duty that is going to be assessed on their 
goods sold overseas, a duty which could go up as high as 18 percent--
and that duty was a function of the fact we lost a World Trade court 
decision which allows this duty to go forward--that bill which would 
have corrected that, put an end to the duty and thus allow 
manufacturing jobs and service-oriented jobs in the United States to 
continue to expand and flourish, that bill was killed in this Senate 
because of extraneous issues which the other side of the aisle, the 
Democratic Party, decided they wanted to bring forward. They would not 
allow the bill to go forward without those extraneous issues being 
voted on.
  The bill had absolute consensus. There was a belief, there is a 
belief, there should be a belief, that American jobs should not be lost 
as a result of our tax laws being found illegal by a body which we 
subscribe to, the World Trade Organization, and that we should correct 
that problem, and we can correct it rather effectively, and that 
correction will save jobs in the United States. That will not happen 
now because of the obstruction coming from the other side of the aisle. 
It is one in a series of obstructions.
  Now we see the exact same thing happen in the area of welfare reform. 
Literally, in the last 5 years, there have been very few laws as 
successful that this Congress has passed as welfare reform. It was so 
successful--it was an idea put forward on this side of the aisle--once 
it passed and started to work, it was immediately adopted by the other 
side of the aisle as theirs.
  President Clinton had the right to take credit; he was President when 
the bill was passed. He was President and takes credit as one of the 
strong elements of service of his Presidency. And I am glad he takes 
credit.
  Now when we try to reauthorize and improve it significantly through 
the block grant proposal which we brought out of our bipartisan 
committee, now when we try to move the bill forward so we can continue 
with the welfare reform experience of the last few years and make sure 
that experience continues to allow people to move from public 
assistance to work and give people self-confidence, self-respect, and 
self-esteem as a result of attaining work, that bill has been stopped 
once again by the Democratic membership of this body coming forward and 
saying they want to cast a political vote on an unrelated issue.
  It is these actions that one has to question the purpose. Why, when 
bills have been agreed to which will significantly improve the 
lifestyle of Americans, the number of jobs Americans have in the case 
of the tax bill which was just stopped last week, or the number of 
people moving from welfare to work, which is getting good jobs and 
moving out of a public assistance situation and getting self-respect, 
why are these bills being stopped for purely political purposes by the 
other side of the aisle bringing forward extraneous amendments.
  It is an unconscionable action, in my opinion. It is regrettable that 
the childcare block grant proposal, the reauthorization of which came 
out of our committee unanimously and which represents a significant 
improvement, especially in this area of trying to get learning into the 
childcare experience, trying to get quality in the childcare 
experience, giving States more flexibility and putting more money into 
the program in the context of a responsible budget bill, why that would 
be stopped also is beyond me. It is not beyond me; it is fairly 
obvious. The purpose here is to make a political statement. It is a 
political statement, come heck or high water. It does not matter that 
the making of the political statement will cost people jobs and make it 
harder to move from welfare to work, creating a poorer and a less well-
financed childcare block grant program.
  It is unfortunate. It is the politics of the day. I know the American 
people do not focus too much on what we do in the Senate in the day-to-
day regime. I hope the American people take the time to learn what has 
transpired in this body in the last 6 to 8 months. The obstructionism 
on the other side of the aisle has become the cause of the day, the 
purpose of every event. This obstructionism continues and grows as we 
move closer to the election. The practical effect of this 
obstructionism coming from the other side of the aisle is that good 
things which help working Americans keep jobs, move from welfare to 
work, ensuring their kids have quality daycare, good things like that 
are being stopped as a result of this unrequited obstructionism coming 
from the other side of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                            Nevada Champions

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, 
and I will take a couple of minutes and exercise our privileges as 
Senators to brag a little bit about our State and the recent 
accomplishments of the University of Nevada basketball team and their 
rise to the Sweet 16.
  The Nevada Wolf Pack brought a lot of pride to our State. It is not a 
school known for basketball. Certainly, they had more football success 
in the years past. However, this year they surprised many in the 
Nation. It was obviously a heart-breaking loss to Georgia Tech last 
week. But Coach Trent Johnson, the whole Wolf Pack team and all the 
people surrounded with the program deserve a lot of credit for the 
season they put together. We expect big things from them in the future.
  For a school such as the University of Nevada, a school that does not 
have the reputation of the University of Connecticut or Duke, it is 
more difficult to get the kind of players to go up to Reno to play 
basketball. They have players from Virginia City, Elko, and some of the 
other small towns around Nevada.
  Coach Johnson crafted a team providing a good lesson for all of us to 
learn. If you can work together as a team, you can achieve true 
greatness. That is what his team did this year. Earlier in the year 
they beat the University of Kansas, beat them very soundly. Then 
through the March Madness, they made it all the way through the Sweet 
16.
  It was funny to listen to the various announcers talk about our team 
and trash them, not even understanding how to pronounce ``Nevada.'' We 
do not use their pronunciation. It was funny to listen to them saying 
they did not have a chance; they did not know how to play basketball. 
Certainly the coach from the University of Nevada and the rest of the 
players proved them wrong.
  I rise today to congratulate them on a great season and look forward 
to their success.
  I also wish the Lady Rebels from the University of Nevada Las Vegas 
success tonight. They are in the WNIT championship. We have a lot to be 
proud of in our State. I join my colleague, Senator Harry Reid, in 
congratulating especially the Nevada Wolf Pack for what they have 
achieved. Hopefully, we will be able to talk about the championship the 
Lady Rebels will achieve tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page 5696]]


  Mr. REID. I hope Senator Ensign and I are able to be on the same team 
working here in the Senate as the University of Nevada at Reno was 
during this basketball season. We strive to do that. They have set a 
good example for us and for everyone.
  We may be outnumbered in the State of Nevada. There may be a lot of 
States with more people than we have, but Senator Ensign and I realize 
every State only has two Senators. We believe as a result of that, of 
our working together, we can have the same strength and power some of 
the more populated States have. I have enjoyed and appreciated working 
as a team with Senator Ensign during his tenure in the Senate.
  I also today want to extend my congratulations to Coach Trent Johnson 
and the basketball team at the University of Nevada. We have in recent 
years reached goals in our athletic programs at the University of 
Nevada, but for Coach Ault and his football team, they have been good.
  I remember going to Georgia Southern to watch UNR play them for the 
national championship, in Division II. And though we lost that game, it 
was a great thrill to reach that level, which was significant for the 
university.
  Since that time, the University of Nevada football has moved into 
Division I. Basketball has always been Division I.
  Now, many years ago, the Wolf Pack was known all over the country. It 
had, at one time, three All-Americans on its football team. We had 
Marion Motley, who is now a member of the Football Hall of Fame, who 
played football at the University of Nevada, at Reno. And we had other 
great players, Dick Trachok, Tommy Kaminer, and many others, but that 
is many years ago.
  So what Senator Ensign said about the Wolf Pack Basketball Team is 
significant. They had not been to an NCAA tournament for 19 years. They 
had never, in the history of the school, won an NCAA game.
  This year they were forecast, by all the prognosticators, to continue 
that ``never to win a game.'' The first team they played was the great 
Michigan State. They beat Michigan State. Then the prognosticators 
said: Well, that was a fluke. There is no way in the world they will 
beat the highest ranked Gonzaga team. Gonzaga, all year, had lost one 
game. That game was not close. UNR moved through there very quickly.
  Then they moved on to the Sweet Sixteen. They played Georgia Tech. 
They led Georgia Tech at half time, and it was really an exciting game. 
They lost. But other than my being disappointed because they did not go 
to the Final Four, I join my colleague in expressing my congratulations 
to this great basketball team.
  We have focused so much attention, in years past, with the UNLV 
basketball team, the Runnin' Rebels, that has overshadowed the 
accomplishments of the University of Nevada, at Reno. But that will no 
longer ever be said as a result of the great accomplishment made by 
this team.
  I want to say something about the importance of coaching. Trent 
Johnson came from Stanford. He was an assistant coach over there. He 
came 5 years ago. He accepted the challenge of being a head coach of a 
Division I school. But, frankly, the record that he was given was 
pretty dismal. The year that he took over, he looked back to see that 
the prior year they had won 8 games and lost 18. This year they won 24 
games. That is the turnaround.
  As Senator Ensign mentioned, they beat Kansas, which was ranked No. 1 
at the time. Early in the year, people knew they would be pretty good 
because they almost beat Connecticut, which, at that time, was also 
ranked No. 1.
  Few people thought they could make the strides that they did except 
their coach, Trent Johnson. He is an outstanding coach. It is my 
understanding and my hope that the people in Reno have done everything 
they can to make him happy. He is a great coach, and this record of his 
will only continue.
  I want to reflect a little bit on this team. It was led by the player 
of the year in the Western Athletic Conference, a man by the name of 
Kirk Snyder. He is a junior. If he wants to go pro, he will be drafted 
in the first round.
  During the times I have watched him during the games this year, and 
listened to the games, the sportscasters always focused on this man who 
was so good.
  They also had a point guard by the name of Todd Okeson, someone who 
is a senior, and was the sparkplug of that team. He was the point 
guard, but he also scored very well.
  There were other fine players on that team. They may not have scored 
over 20 points a game as did Kirk Snyder, but they did many other good 
things. Gary Hill-Thomas was a great defender. Kevin Pinkney was one of 
the great rebounders. And then there was a young man by the name of 
Nick Fazekas, who is almost 7 feet tall, a freshman, and has a soft 
touch. He stepped in at very crucial times during the tournament and 
made key baskets, and came to the free throw line and always came 
through.
  But we also had players from Nevada. They are not all out-of-Staters. 
For example, Sean Paul, the ``Elko Enforcer,'' comes from the town of 
Elko in northeastern Nevada. And there were other players: Jermaine 
Washington and Marcelus Kemp.
  These players have made Coach Johnson proud. I am confident that is 
one reason Coach Johnson is going to stay at the University of Nevada, 
at Reno. We want him, and I certainly hope he stays. I am confident 
that he will.
  All these players, and especially the coach, have made Nevadans 
proud.
  Sometimes when a team loses in a tournament, people say: ``Wait until 
next year.'' But I think everyone in Nevada is going to dwell on the 
fact that this team did well, and we are going to savor this remarkable 
season by UNR, and not dwell on next year.
  Senator Ensign mentioned, and I also want to mention, that we also 
have a great coach at UNLV. She coaches the UNLV Runnin' Rebels. The 
Lady Rebels are very good. They came within one point of going to the 
NCAA tournament. They are now in the National Invitation Tournament, 
and they are in the finals. They are going to play Creighton tonight 
for the National Invitation Championship. They have done great.
  I love to watch the Lady Rebels. I have gone and met with these young 
women and have spoken with the coach. So I congratulate Coach Miller 
and her Lady Rebels for the great notoriety they have focused on the 
University of Nevada Las Vegas this year and wish them well in their 
tournament game tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 2945

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the 
pending amendment offered by the Senators from California and 
Massachusetts; namely, the minimum wage amendment. I would like to 
point out the effect of the current minimum wage on people today, and 
particularly as to where they are with respect to poverty in America.
  Let me refer to this chart. This chart represents the relationship 
between the minimum wage and the poverty line for a family of two, 
beginning in the year 1988, and up through the year 2002.
  From this chart you can see, quite visibly, frankly--with the minimum 
wage represented in green and the poverty line being the line just 
below the blue--that as the minimum wage increased in 1989, and in a 
step sort of function up to 1998, that for a person who had a job, with 
a family of two--let's say a single mom had a full-time job but made 
the minimum wage--they were still below the Federal poverty level, 
until about 1998, and then they could just barely surpass the poverty 
level.
  I point this out because it does not seem right that a person who has 
a full-time job at a minimum wage still lives in poverty.
  Now, that is bad enough. But let me show you how much worse it gets. 
This next chart shows the relationship between the minimum wage and 
poverty for a family of three: let's say a mom and dad and a child. By 
this chart one

[[Page 5697]]

can tell very easily that the gap between the poverty line and the 
minimum wage is much greater for a family of three than it even is for 
a family of two. In fact, if I have my numbers correct, the amount is 
about $3,681. That is the gap.
  I point out, again, for a family of three, with one breadwinner--say 
with a father who is at the minimum wage--that family of three will 
find itself, on average, over a year's time, about $3,600 of income 
less than the Federal poverty level. That family is living in poverty 
even though the breadwinner of that family is working full time.
  And it gets worse, as you might expect.
  Let's take a family of four, say a father and a mother, and two 
children. Say one parent is working full time at a minimum wage job. 
Because the increase in the minimum wage has been so slow, the gap 
between what that family earns and the Federal poverty level is even 
greater.
  In fact, it is about twice as much, which means that a family of four 
with one wage earner at the minimum wage is earning about half of what 
the Federal poverty level is. I don't think that is right. I frankly 
don't understand why some people do not want a significant increase in 
the minimum wage.
  Let me tell you a personal story. Personal stories sometimes are out 
of context, but it meant a lot to me. One year I was walking across my 
State in Montana campaigning. To be honest, I learned an awful lot just 
by talking to people who I just happened to meet walking down the roads 
and highways and visiting in people's homes. A lot of it had to do with 
welfare. I remember talking to many people on welfare who told me they 
did not want to be on welfare. They hated it. They wanted to be off 
welfare.
  One of the main factors they mentioned to me as to why it is so 
difficult to get off of welfare is because of the minimum wage laws. 
They are working maybe at McDonald's or someplace else in a minimum 
wage job, but because the minimum wage rates were so low, they couldn't 
make ends meet.
  It is hard to know when to believe people. It is hard to know when to 
think what people say is right or not, but you have to read between the 
lines. You have to get a sense of what is going on. It was very clear 
to me that these people were speaking the truth, certainly as they 
perceived it. If there were a significant increase in their wages, they 
could then get off of welfare.
  It is tied to the earlier debate on childcare. I ran into a lot of 
women, single moms who said the same thing to me. They were really 
earnest. I wish you could have seen the expressions on their faces 
saying that they wanted to stay off of welfare.
  One young single mom explained to me that she slept on her mother's 
sofa so she could avoid having to pay for a room someplace. She had a 
minimum wage job. Her childcare expenses were so high she could not 
handle it anymore and she had to go back on to welfare. She hated it.
  In those few instances, people I talked to just by happenstance--
chance encounters--that is what they have said to me.
  We have to make judgments sometimes. One of the judgments I have made 
is that our current minimum wage is too low. For a civilized country, 
the United States of America, we can do a heck of a lot better.
  Sometimes you hear business people say it will increase their cost of 
business. It probably will slightly. But if everybody is getting paid 
more, more dollars flow into the economy. People are more likely to not 
be on welfare, and they are more likely to have a little more self-
esteem. They are more likely to be able to advance themselves. Most 
people want to advance themselves. They want a better life for their 
families and their kids. Some just find themselves caught in difficult 
situations.
  I hope people will look at these charts and see how dramatic the 
difference is between the minimum wage income on the one hand and the 
Federal poverty level on the other. The income of someone on the 
minimum wage is much below the Federal poverty level. It does not seem 
right that a person working full time, whether he or she has one child, 
or is married, or whether he or she has three in the family or four, 
should live so far below the Federal poverty level. That is not right. 
If they are going to work full time, they should be able to live 
outside of poverty.
  I urge Senators to support the amendment offered by the Senator from 
California.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          The 9/11 Commission

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, after watching the harsh acrimony 
generated by the September 11 Commission--which, let me say at the 
outset, is made up of good and able members--I have come to seriously 
question this panel's usefulness. I believe it will ultimately play a 
role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended 
consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize 
our troops.
  After being drowned in a tidal wave of all who didn't do enough 
before 9/11, I have come to believe that the Commission should issue a 
report that says: No one did enough. In the past, no one did near 
enough. And then thank everybody for serving, send them home, and let's 
get on with the job of protecting this country in the future.
  Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive 
diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable 
time looking backward instead of looking forward. Can you imagine 
handling the attack on Pearl Harbor this way? Can you imagine Congress, 
the media, and the public standing for this kind of political 
gamesmanship and finger-pointing after that day of infamy in 1941?
  Some partisans tried that ploy, but they were soon quieted by the 
patriots who understood how important it was to get on with the war and 
take the battle to America's enemies and not dwell on what FDR knew, 
when. You see, back then the highest priority was to win a war, not to 
win an election. That is what made them the greatest generation.
  I realize that many well-meaning Americans see the hearings as 
democracy in action. Years ago when I was teaching political science, I 
probably would have had my class watching it live on television and 
using that very same phrase with them.
  There are also the not-so-well-meaning political operatives who see 
these hearings as an opportunity to score cheap points. And then there 
are the media meddlers who see this as great theater that can be played 
out on the evening news and on endless talk shows for a week or more.
  Congressional hearings have long been one of Washington's most 
entertaining pastimes. Joe McCarthy, Watergate, Iran-Contra--they all 
kept us glued to the TV and made for conversations around the water 
coolers or arguments over a beer at the corner pub.
  A congressional hearing in Washington, DC is the ultimate aphrodisiac 
for political groupies and partisan punks. But it is not the groupies, 
punks, and television-sotted American public that I am worried about. 
This latter crowd can get excited and divided over just about anything, 
whether it is some off-key wannabe dreaming of being the American idol, 
or what brainless bimbo ``The Bachelor'' or ``Average Joe'' will 
choose, or who Donald Trump will fire next week. No, it is the real 
enemies of America that I am concerned about. These evil killers who 
right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger-pointing of 
these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars.
  They see this as a major split within the great Satan, America. They 
see anger. They see division, instability, bickering, peevishness, and 
dissension. They see the President of the United States hammered 
unmercifully. They see all this, and they are greatly encouraged.
  We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this 
battle

[[Page 5698]]

between good and evil. Yet these hearings, in my opinion, are doing 
just that. We are playing with fire. We are playing directly into the 
hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great 
divider they have become.
  Dick Clarke's book and its release coinciding with these hearings 
have done this country a tremendous disservice and some day we will 
reap its whirlwind.
  Long ago, Sir Walter Scott observed that revenge is ``the sweetest 
morsel that ever was cooked in hell.''
  The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell 
has he, his CBS publisher, and his axe-to-grind advocates unleashed?
  These hearings, coming on the heels of the election the terrorists 
influenced in Spain, bolster and energize our evil enemies as they have 
not been energized since 9/11.
  Chances are very good that these evil enemies of America will attempt 
to influence our 2004 election in a similar dramatic way as they did 
Spain's. And to think that could never be in this country is to stick 
your head in the sand.
  That is why the sooner we stop this endless bickering over the past 
and join together to prepare for the future, the better off this 
country will be. There are some things--whether this city believes it 
or not--that are just more important than political campaigns.
  The recent past is so ripe for political second-guessing, ``gotcha,'' 
and Monday morning quarterbacking. And it is so tempting in an election 
year. We should not allow ourselves to indulge that temptation. We 
should put our country first.
  Every administration, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, bears some 
of the blame. Dick Clarke bears a big heap of it, because it was he who 
was in the catbird's seat to do something about it for more than a 
decade. Tragically, it was the decade in which we did the least.
  We did nothing after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 
1993, killing six and injuring more than a thousand Americans.
  We did nothing in 1996 when 16 U.S. servicemen were killed in the 
bombing of the Khobar Towers.
  When our embassies were attacked in 1998, killing 263 people, our 
only response was to fire a few missiles on an empty tent.
  Is it any wonder that after that decade of weak-willed responses to 
that murderous terror, our enemies thought we would never fight back?
  In the 1990s is when Dick Clarke should have resigned. In the 1990s 
is when he should have apologized. That is when he should have written 
his book--that is, if he really had America's best interests at heart.
  Now, I know some will say we owe it to the families to get more 
information about what happened in the past, and I can understand that. 
But no amount of finger-pointing will bring our victims back.
  So now we owe it to the future families and all of America now in 
jeopardy not to encourage more terrorists, resulting in even more 
grieving families--perhaps many times over the ones of 9/11.
  It is obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into 
two camps--the wimps and the warriors: the ones who want to argue and 
assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our 
enemies and kill them before they kill us. In case you have not figured 
it out, I proudly belong to the latter.
  This is a time like no other time in the history of this country. 
This country is being crippled with petty partisan politics of the 
worst possible kind. In time of war, it is not just unpatriotic; it is 
stupid; it is criminal.
  So I pray that all this time, all this energy, all this talk, and all 
of the attention could be focused on the future instead of the past.
  I pray we would stop pointing fingers and assigning blame and 
wringing our hands about what happened on that day David AcUology has 
called ``the worst day in all our history'' more than 2 years ago, and 
instead, pour all our energy into how we can kill these terrorists 
before they kill us--again.
  Make no mistake about it: They are watching these hearings and they 
are scheming and smiling about the distraction and the divisiveness 
that they see in America. And while they might not know who said it 
years ago in America, they know instinctively that a house divided 
cannot stand.
  There is one other group that we should remember is listening to all 
of this--our troops.
  I was in Iraq in January. One day, when I was meeting with the 1st 
Armored Division, a unit with a proud history, known as Old Ironsides, 
we were discussing troop morale, and the commanding general said it was 
top notch.
  I turned to the division's sergeant major, the top enlisted man in 
the division, a big, burly 6-foot-3, 240 pound African American, and I 
said: ``That's good, but how do you sustain that kind of morale?''
  Without hesitation, he narrowed his eyes, and he looked at me and 
said: ``The morale will stay high just as long as these troops know the 
people back home support us.''
  Just as long as the people back home support us. What kind of message 
are these hearings and the outrageously political speeches on the floor 
of the Senate yesterday sending to the marvelous young Americans in the 
uniform of our country?
  I say: Unite America before it is too late. Put aside these petty 
partisan differences when it comes to the protection of our people. 
Argue and argue and argue, debate and debate and debate over all the 
other things, such as jobs, education, the deficit, and the 
environment; but please, please do not use the lives of Americans and 
the security of this country as a cheap-shot political talking point.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mrs. DOLE assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
outstanding comments. There is a war going on and he made some 
outstanding points. I have heard several of his speeches and learned a 
lot from each of them.
  I am going to speak now on, I believe, the pending amendment, the 
Boxer-Kennedy amendment. I will share my thoughts about raising the 
Federal minimum wage. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep 
talking about the loss of American jobs, but their actions don't match 
up to their words.
  If my colleagues are so concerned about unemployment, why would they 
do something that would eliminate jobs in this country? If my 
colleagues are so concerned about helping poor families, why would they 
do something that hurts poor families the most? Their effort to 
increase the minimum wage, while attacking the President on job 
creation, is not based on sound policy and economics.
  There is an effort underway to put a smokescreen of unrelated 
amendments that mask election year politics in misleading rhetoric. It 
is being done on the reauthorization of the welfare bill.
  It is time for us to look beyond the smokescreen and see who is 
really helped and who is really hurt by Senator Kennedy's amendment to 
raise the Federal minimum wage.
  Every student who has taken an economics course knows if you increase 
the price of something--in this case, the minimum wage job--you 
decrease the demand for those jobs. A survey of members of the American 
Economic Association revealed that 77 percent of economists believe 
that a minimum wage hike causes job loss.
  For small businesses, where most of the job creation in this country 
is generated, a minimum wage increase is particularly harmful. Having 
owned a small business in Wyoming, I can speak from personal experience 
about how detrimental a minimum wage increase would be for small 
businesses and job growth.
  I need to explain something. Very few people in the shoe business I 
was in were working at the minimum wage, which my wife and I preferred 
to call the level of minimum skills. Those are the people who first 
came in and did not have any capability in the kind of

[[Page 5699]]

job they were going to be doing and we had a starting wage, a starting 
skills wage. Anybody who was in that wage more than 3 months was not 
paying attention, and that is the way with most of the businesses in 
this country.
  The minimum wage is the minimum skills wage, and it is the starting 
wage. It does have an effect on other wages as well. When we raise the 
minimum wage, then to keep the proper spread between employees of 
different skills, other jobs get raises, too. Of course, when that 
happens, there has to be a way to pay for it, and the way to pay for 
that almost always comes from raising prices. If you raise prices and 
wages, there is not much gain.
  How do I explain to my constituents, most of whom rely on small 
business for their livelihood, that Congress wants to do something that 
would foster job loss instead of job creation?
  Every day I read letters to the editors of the Wyoming newspapers. 
One appeared in the Casper Star from one of my constituents about his 
concerns in September 2002. I came across this letter again. It was 
written by Imo Harned of Douglas, WY, about the effects of a minimum 
wage increase. It is a reminder about the true cost of minimum wage 
increases.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       That's Like no Help at All

       Editor: I first became interested in the effects of raising 
     minimum wage in the 1960s. An employer I knew fired three men 
     he'd employed as watchmen. He remarked that it was worth 
     something to have warm bodies around, but not at 75 cents an 
     hour. Since then I have made it a habit from time to time to 
     ask an employer if raising minimum wage makes a difference to 
     his business. No matter if he pays one person or dozens, the 
     answer is always the same. ``There are X number of dollars in 
     the budget and I can't exceed that amount. If it means 
     cutting hours or firing workers, I have to do it to stay 
     within the budget.'' Personal observations show that within a 
     week of a raise in minimum wage, groceries will raise enough 
     to absorb the increase. Also, people who make more than 
     minimum have to pay the increased costs too, so it amounts to 
     a cut in pay for those who make more.
       Several years ago the Wall Street Journal did a study 
     showing that living standards have remained unchanged for 
     people earning minimum wage since that wage was 50 cents an 
     hour! The only difference was that those poor people were in 
     a higher tax bracket and had to pay more taxes.
       A person who begins working at minimum wage, who works hard 
     and earns an increase in pay should not be penalized by being 
     returned to the beginning again. Neither should anyone be 
     penalized by having to pay the increased food and utilities 
     that follow every time the minimum wage is increased.
                                              Imo Harned, Douglas.

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have listened to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle who support a minimum wage increase. I have 
seen their charts and heard their arguments. However, none of their 
charts or arguments can refute the commonsense and real world 
observation of Imo Harned from Douglas, WY.
  Mr. Harned writes--I am quoting part of it and the whole letter is 
printed in the Record. I am sure my colleagues will want to read it:

     . . . I have made it a habit from time to time to ask an 
     employer if raising minimum wage makes a difference to his 
     business. No matter if he pays one person or dozens, the 
     answer is always the same: ``There are X number of dollars in 
     the budget and I can't exceed that amount. If it means 
     cutting hours or firing workers, I have to do it to stay 
     within the budget.'' Personal observations show that within a 
     week of a raise in minimum wage, groceries will raise enough 
     to absorb the increase. Also, people who make more than 
     minimum have to pay the increased costs, too, so it amounts 
     to a cut in pay for those who make more.

  Mr. Harned saw through the phony economics of a minimum wage 
increase. He reached the same conclusion as two Stanford economists: A 
minimum wage increase is paid for by higher prices that hurt poor 
families the most. Some argue that we need to increase the minimum wage 
to help poor families. However, the 2001 study conducted by Stanford 
University economists found that only one in four of the poorest 20 
percent of families would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. 
Three in four of the poorest workers would be hurt by a wage hike 
because they would shoulder the costs of resulting higher prices. A 
Federal wage hike will hurt the very people the underlying welfare 
reauthorization bill is designed to help: America's poor families.
  I have held on to Mr. Harned's letter as a reminder of the dangers of 
a ``Washington knows best'' and a ``one size fits all'' mentality. An 
increase in the Federal minimum wage is a classic lesson that 
Washington does not know best and one size does not fit all.
  A Federal wage mandate does not account for the cost of living that 
varies across the country. It costs over twice as much to live in New 
York City than in Cheyenne, WY. However, a Federal minimum wage hike 
that applies coast to coast is like saying a bag of groceries in New 
York City must cost the same as a bag of groceries in Cheyenne. Local 
labor market conditions and the cost of living determines pay rates, 
not Federal minimum wage laws dictated from Washington.
  I support an increase for all wages, but that increase should be 
fueled by a strong, free market economy, not by an artificial Federal 
mandate that hurts business and workers alike. Artificial wage hikes 
drive prices up. We should not trick workers into thinking they are 
earning more when they still cannot pay the bills at the end of the 
month. We should not trick the American people into believing that the 
phony economics of a minimum wage increase will improve the standard of 
living in this country. Nor should we trick the American people into 
believing that a minimum wage increase is without cost.
  The smoke and mirrors of a minimum wage increase is not the way for 
American workers to find and keep well-paying jobs. We have to 
encourage, not discourage, job creation, and we have to equip our 
workers with the skills needed to compete in the new global economy.
  It is one of my goals to make sure that the unfilled higher paying 
jobs can be filled by Americans. I talked about the minimum wage being 
a minimum skills wage. There are higher paying jobs out there, but you 
have to have the skills for them. How do you get the skills for them? 
We have a bill. It is called the Workforce Investment Act. It 
reauthorizes the Nation's job training and employment system, and it 
updates it to the modern jobs. It allows people to be working in the 
areas of highest need in this country, instead of forcing those jobs 
overseas.
  That bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee unanimously. We passed it on the Senate floor by unanimous 
consent last November. That means nobody wanted to amend it and nobody 
objected to what was in the bill. That is as bipartisan as you can get.
  Where is that bill now? It is languishing around here because the 
minority party will not let us get a conference committee appointed to 
resolve the differences with the House, the final step for the bill. 
The House has passed a bill. It is a little different from the Senate 
bill. But we need to meet and work out the differences and get that 
final bill.
  What does this mean in the way of jobs? Training for 900,000 jobs a 
year. That is pretty significant, training for 900,000 jobs a year. I 
kind of get the feeling we do not want to resolve that until after 
November so that it can be a part of the politics of the Presidency. 
That is wrong. It ought to be worked out now. We ought to have a 
conference committee. We ought to get it done. If we want to take care 
of jobs in this country, if we want people to be making more and to be 
making more real money, we ought to get them trained into the skilled 
positions in the jobs that are vacant in this country right now before 
we ship them over to another country. We need to have a conference 
committee. That would provide jobs. That will provide increased wages. 
That will provide real increased wages, not just inflationary wages 
that will drive up the price of all of the goods and absorb, as Mr. 
Harned said, in 1 week the amount of the raise.
  I owe Mr. Harned and all my constituents sound policy, not election 
year rhetoric. I owe it to Mr. Harned

[[Page 5700]]

and all of my constituents to remove the smokescreen around the minimum 
wage debate and expose its true cost.
  The Boxer-Kennedy amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage ignores 
the true cost of a minimum wage increase on America's workers and 
businessmen.
  I hope we can put this debate, which is unrelated to the underlying 
bill, behind us. I hope we can move beyond election year theatrics and 
get to the real work of helping America's low-income families.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boxer-Kennedy amendment and to 
read the letter of Mr. Harned in full.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Iowa 
giving me the opportunity to sit in this august chair he so ably 
occupies on more than just a few occasions on the Senate floor where we 
seem to have Finance Committee bills on a pretty frequent basis. He 
works diligently. He has been called away to do some other things so I 
am going to take this opportunity to speak, as we are stuck on an 
amendment that is nongermane to this bill, and which was offered with 
the full knowledge that this would severely jeopardize this bill being 
moved to passage.
  Earlier today we had a good debate on daycare funding. We passed an 
amendment that added $6 billion more in daycare funding to this bill. 
Current funding for the Child Care and Development Fund is $4.8 
billion. The committee added $1 billion more. Why did we add this 
increase in funding? Because in the bill we increased the work 
requirement by 20 percent.
  Now I would make the argument we did not actually increase it by 20 
percent because we give partial credit to the States, so it is probably 
not a 20- percent increase. At most, we increase the work requirement 
in this bill by 20 percent. So we also increased the daycare funding.
  Candidly, there is probably not even that much of a direct 
correlation. It is probably not even going to be required to have 20 
percent more to meet this work requirement, but we did it, anyway.
  The HELP Committee comes forward with a proposal that is $2.3 billion 
more in childcare that will be in this bill, and then today we add $6 
billion more. That is a 100-percent increase in daycare funding for a 
20-percent increase in work requirements. I am starting to rethink the 
work requirements at the rate this is costing us.
  In addition, there is almost $1.5 billion in money the States now 
hold that can only be used for cash assistance. When we passed the 1996 
welfare bill, one of the concerns on the left was this money for cash 
assistance be used for cash assistance and it is not to be taken out 
and used for other purposes. So we have a pipeline which only funds 
cash assistance.
  What we do in this bill is allow this $1.5 billion to be used for 
daycare. So it is not a $1 billion increase on top of a $2.3 billion 
increase on top of a $6 billion increase, but on top of a $1.5 billion 
increase on top of that. This is how much money we now have in this 
bill for childcare. I oppose that. I think that is an extraordinary 
expansion of a program that, while it has benefits and I certainly 
support it, and in the 1996 bill I supported the final compromise which 
added $1 billion to the daycare funding to get this bill originally 
enacted, but this is excessive and unwarranted, and I would argue not 
good policy for a variety of different reasons.
  There is some good policy in this bill, and it is being blocked. I 
think when the Senator from California offered this amendment, she 
understood what was going to happen if she offered this amendment, and 
that was this bill would be shut down, as the last bill was because of 
a blocking amendment on the JOBS bill to create more manufacturing 
jobs.
  What we would like to see done is a limitation of amendments. I would 
frankly be happy to deal with all relevant amendments to this bill, no 
limitation on any relevant amendments, but a limitation on political 
amendments. Clearly, minimum wage is a political amendment that has 
been offered numerous times in the past, always seeming to wait until 
right before election. We never see minimum wage increases offered in 
odd-numbered years. I do not know if my colleagues noticed that, but it 
seems to be offered in even-numbered years. So we have even-numbered 
election issues that are brought up by Senators Boxer and Kennedy, who 
said they would like to see this bill pass. They say they would like to 
see this extended.
  I tell my colleagues that the Senator from California in 1996 said: I 
cannot support legislation--she was referring to the 1996 welfare 
reform act--which will throw countless children into poverty. No one 
expects us to solve the welfare problem by punishing children for being 
poor. That is what she said in 1996.
  So did this bill punish children for being poor? Let us look at the 
black child poverty rate. The highest rates of poverty in America are 
among black children, at least they have been. At the time Senator 
Boxer made that statement, the poverty rate among African-American 
children was 45 percent. She said this bill will punish children by 
throwing them into poverty, will punish them because we are going to 
require their mothers to go to work, we are going to require and put 
time limits on the amount of time people can spend on welfare because 
we have an expectation that if one is able-bodied they can work, they 
should work, and it is beneficial to them and their children if they do 
work.
  So we did a whole bunch of things to create not only a stick to get 
people to work, but a lot of incentives or carrots to make work pay. We 
invested a lot of money: Daycare, yes; transportation; EIC. We can go 
on down the list. We put in a lot of incentives over the last several 
years to make work pay.
  What happened? We have the lowest rate of black child poverty ever in 
America. Now, one might ask, well, did the other side learn a lesson? 
Did they understand that actually they were wrong? I know the Senator 
from California had a picture, and I know the Senator from Illinois at 
the time, Ms. Moseley-Braun, had pictures of people in breadlines and 
people sleeping on grates. Have we now admitted this concept of work 
and the concept of time limitations was, in fact, not a punishment but 
the real punishment was locking people into dependency and poverty? 
That is punishing. That is hopelessness.
  What we provided in this bill was hope. Have they learned? Well, the 
proof is in the pudding. The Senator from California comes forward and 
offers an amendment, shuts down the bill. She will have ample 
opportunities over the next several weeks to offer an amendment on this 
issue.
  By the way, there have been ample opportunities in the past 15 months 
to offer a minimum wage increase, and yet on a bill everybody is for, 
that we want to reauthorize--they say they are not trying to block this 
bill--15 months go by in the session and we are going to offer an 
amendment to try to sink this bill.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to offer germane 
amendments, to withdraw this amendment, let's get to the substance of 
this issue. This is an important battle to provide hope and opportunity 
for the poor in our society, to bring dignity into the lives of 
communities that have been struggling to make ends meet.
  Let's stick to this issue and get it done. Let's show the Senate can 
work on important issues of the day.
  One of the things I wanted to talk about--I had talked at length 
about the general welfare bill and I had mentioned the issue briefly, 
but I wanted to focus a little more attention on it, the issue the 
President proposed on marriage.
  There has been a lot of debate about marriage in America over the 
past several months. What I am talking about here is the role of the 
Government to encourage and promote healthy marriages. The President 
has a healthy and stable marriage initiative he has put forward.
  Why do we want to do this? Do we want to force people into bad 
marriages? Or bring out the shotgun again

[[Page 5701]]

and get people to marry even though they may not want to? No. That is 
not what this is about. No one is suggesting or has suggested we force 
anybody into marriage. But here is what we have done. The President, 
and many of us who have been working on this issue for a long time, 
actually decided to look into the benefits of marriage to children and 
to women and to men in poverty, and determine what and if there are any 
benefits. Should the Government be neutral on this issue? Should we 
stay out of it? Or are there things we can look to that would encourage 
us to encourage marriage?
  Here are some of the benefits we have identified in looking at the 
data. Children in married homes do better in school. They drop out 
less. They have fewer emotional and behavioral problems, less substance 
abuse, less abuse or neglect, including physical abuse, less criminal 
activity, less early sexual activity, and fewer out-of-wedlock births.
  If I said I had a drug that could accomplish all these things for 
children, we would prescribe it for every child in America. Yet when we 
say we want to have a program in the welfare system where we are 
dealing with the poorest children in America who, in most cases, are in 
some of the worst neighborhoods of America, in the roughest communities 
in America, who are living in many cases in very difficult family 
situations--if we say we want to provide these benefits to them, you 
get the responses: Why do you want to force some rightwing religious 
agenda on us?
  There are actually people who are opposed to the President's 
proposals, who are opposed to the President's proposals in the face of 
the benefit to those who we hear a lot about here on the floor of the 
Senate, how we need more for children. We get a lot of proposals from 
the Senator from Massachusetts that we can help children by increasing 
the minimum wage while in fact he provides absolutely no evidence that 
is the case. In fact, when we had the discussion today, the Senator 
from Massachusetts said things were better in the 1960s and 1970s and 
1980s, when the minimum wage was high.
  If you go back to the previous chart on black poverty, I will tell 
you what else is high: Poverty among African-American children. So if 
there were a connection between the rate of poverty and the minimum 
wage, you would think during this time, when the value of the minimum 
wage was actually going down, black poverty would be going up. Just the 
opposite is the case. Why? Because most people who earn the minimum 
wage aren't the heads of households so there is very little connection 
between increasing the minimum wage and poverty. Why? Because poverty 
isn't about a little bit more money.
  You think: That makes no sense, Senator. Of course it is about more 
money.
  No, it is not. It is about a lot of factors. People who are poor have 
lives that are just as complicated as those of people who are not. It 
is about the status of their mothers and fathers. It is about the 
family unit around them. It is about a whole host of issues that 
determines whether they will be raised in or out of poverty. To look at 
one little factor that has no correlation with poverty is the kind of 
wrongheaded thinking we have suffered under for far too long in this 
institution.
  But in 1996 we changed it. We went to a different model in welfare. 
Now we are trying to change it again. We know that work works. We also 
know from the data families work.
  If you look at child poverty, it dramatically increases outside of 
intact marriages. If you have an intact marriage, the percent of time 
in poverty for the average child is 7 percent, if that child's parents 
are married.
  As we all know, upon divorce many women end up with the children. 
That is the case certainly the vast majority of time. Many times they 
also end up on welfare, they end up in poverty, as a result of 
separation and divorce. That is the case for children born out of 
wedlock.
  This represents children born within wedlock. Some stay, others get 
divorced.
  Here is the situation where children are born out of wedlock and the 
mother subsequently gets married. The child poverty rate is high, but 
not as high as in the case where mom never gets married. In that case, 
the percentage of time children spend in poverty is 51 percent of their 
childhood, on average.
  So we have a situation where we know marriage has a positive impact 
on poverty. Again, we want to focus on poverty and the health of 
children. The Senator from Massachusetts spoke about the minimum wage 
and how important it was, and provided no evidence as to how minimum 
wage increases would help reduce poverty among children. Let's look at 
what happens, when marriage is involved, to poverty among children. 
Married families are five times less likely to be in poverty than are 
single-parent families. Again, the poverty rate among those who are 
married: Among all, 13 percent; among single families, 35 percent of 
single-parent families in America are living in poverty.
  Shouldn't we have a program that at least suggests when a mother has 
a child and she is not married and the father is there in the hospital, 
that we simply ask the question: Are you interested in being married? 
If both say yes, refer them for counseling to a nonprofit in the 
community, maybe a faith-based organization in the community, somebody 
who is there to nurture that relationship at a very stressful time in 
their lives where, without the proper support and help--and in many 
cases in this situation you don't have a whole lot of family support, 
you certainly don't have popular culture support for fathers nurturing 
and caring for their children--can't the Government at least suggest 
when someone expresses an intent to get married they be given a little 
help in working through that process, given the demonstrable benefits 
that would accrue to them and to their children from an economic point 
of view?
  But there is more than economics. Children living with two parents 
are 44 percent less likely to be physically abused; 47 percent less 
likely to suffer physical neglect; 43 percent less likely to suffer 
emotional neglect; 55 percent less likely to suffer from some form of 
child abuse than children living with a single parent.
  There are people who will come here to the floor and say the 
Government should be neutral with respect to this. In spite of this 
rather strong statement in support of marriage being the optimal place, 
a married household being the optimal place in which to raise a child, 
they will say the Government has no business in this. Yet they will 
come here and have the Government spend billions of dollars to get 
results that are one-twentieth of what these results would be in the 
life of a child.
  We will spend billions here to reduce neglect by 2 percent, or 5 
percent. That is OK if we spend billions. That is all right. But if we 
do something as simple as to say, If you are interested in marriage, we 
will refer you to counseling because we want to actually help you, if 
you want to be married, to get married and to stay married, that is 
wrong. Spending billions of dollars on violence prevention programs, 
that is OK. But the best violence prevention program for a child is a 
healthy marriage. Spending any money on that, Well, wait, this is a 
right-wing religious attempt to influence people with a religious 
agenda. I think we all know from the debate that is going on that 
marriage is not just a religious event. It is a civil event. It is a 
public event. It is a State-sponsored event. It is one that is vitally 
important to the future of our society.
  There is another piece of legislation Senator Bayh, Senator Domenici, 
and I have been working on for quite some time. I am hopeful this will 
not be as controversial as marriage--that is, fathers should 
participate in their children's lives.
  We actually are going to have some money in this bill that will 
encourage responsible fathers. It is called the Responsible Fatherhood 
Initiative which Senator Bayh of Indiana, Senator Domenici of New 
Mexico, and I have been working on for several years. We are able to 
get some money in this bill to promote that.

[[Page 5702]]

  Why? I guess it is obvious. Obviously, we would like to have children 
have some presence of a father in their lives. We understand there is a 
potential benefit. We also understand there are a lot of fathers 
unfortunately who are not necessarily good fathers, who may not 
necessarily be a good influence on children's lives. But there is money 
to help those fathers become a positive influence in their lives; to 
take responsibility for not only providing for them economically, which 
all the previous welfare bills had never focused on--which is getting 
child support--but actually try to support them in ways beyond the 
paycheck they happen to bring home that day.
  Why? If you look again at the information we have been able to gather 
about the difference between children being raised with fathers' 
involvement as opposed to fathers being absent, if you have a father 
involved in your life versus if you do not have a father involved in 
your life--if you do not have a father involved, you are two times more 
likely to abuse drugs and two times more likely to be abused. Why? 
Unfortunately, in far too many relationships, the boyfriend tends to be 
the greatest abuser of the child who is not his own. You are two times 
more likely to become involved in a crime, three times more likely to 
fail in school, three times more likely to take your own life, and five 
times more likely to live in poverty.
  Again, if we had a program we were funding here in the Federal 
Government out of the Great Society program that could accomplish all 
these things, we would be pouring billions in this baby. I mean, there 
would be cries over here to say, if you have this program that can do 
all of this, then we are going to spend--you can't outbid us on this 
because we are going to go home and talk about how we are saving lives, 
reducing drug dependency, reducing abuse, reducing crime, improving 
education, and solving the poverty problem.
  But then you mention, Oh, by the way, this program has to do with 
fathers taking responsibility. No, wait a minute, we are not going to 
do that. You are messing around with families here. No. If you have a 
Government program that we can hire somebody to fill that role, fine, 
but we can't encourage fathers. Why would we want to do that? Who are 
we to be judgmental about getting fathers involved with children's 
lives? That is not the role of the Government. What is the role of 
Government to mess around with the family?
  Because we know what works. Americans know what works. We have known 
it for 200-plus years. We know that stable families is the place which 
has the greatest opportunity to produce stable young children and 
adults. Yet somehow we can't be on the side to save the family, we 
can't be on the side of marriage and responsible fathers. At least we 
haven't been in the past.
  I am hopeful that we have an opportunity in this bill to come down on 
the side of the family, to come down on the side of mothers and fathers 
taking responsibility for their children from the very beginning. And 
the Government should be there to simply ask and encourage and provide 
support if they want to, not to force anybody into anything.
  We have an obligation if we know what works to do it. If we know what 
works and we can have some positive impact on the lives of children, 
then we have an obligation to do it. We are doing it here with a very 
small amount of money. The marriage proposal I think is $100 million 
Federal, $100 million matched by the States, and then a separate $100 
million. It is $300 million. Excuse me. It is $100 million from Federal 
and $100 million from the States over 5 years, which is $1.5 billion. I 
argue that is a fairly modest sum of money for the tremendous benefit 
that will accrue not just to the children, but which is going to accrue 
to fathers who will take responsibility for their children.
  Imagine the change in neighborhoods. Imagine the change in 
neighborhoods where 70 percent of kids, 80 percent of kids are born out 
of wedlock, and within a year 90 to 95 percent of those kids have no 
father involvement in their lives. Imagine the change in the 
neighborhood, which is permeated by single mothers and fathers who are 
attached to nothing except other irresponsible fathers--we call those 
gangs--or they are not attached to that neighborhood at all because 
they are in jail. Imagine the neighborhoods with fathers in the homes. 
Imagine the neighborhoods with role models of responsible manhood and 
fatherhood.
  I have talked to so many people who grew up in neighborhoods with 
high concentrations of fatherlessness and how they were inspired by the 
one or two fathers they knew who weren't their own, but the one or two 
men in the community who were responsible fathers who gave them hope 
and who taught them responsibility. Imagine how we could change 
neighborhoods if we simply brought mothers and fathers back together in 
those neighborhoods, and how that dynamic would change.
  Dare we come down on that side? Dare we invest in trying to change 
their pathology that has attacked so many neighborhoods in our society? 
I say yes. I say we have an obligation to do that.
  Let me get to the economics of this. Fatherhood involvement increases 
child support. The States that, unfortunately as a result of the 1996 
Wofford law, are concerned about establishing paternity and getting the 
money, I say to the States, which will be the instrument by which these 
programs will be implemented, they will have to play a part. They will 
have to put up some money to do this.
  I make the argument it is to their financial benefit to do it. Even 
though it will cost some money for the programs, I make the argument to 
the States that if you can get fathers involved in the lives of their 
children, you will not have to spend as much time chasing down fathers 
to provide child support, and in many cases not getting that child 
support, but you will have a better connection with your children which 
means a better life, and we will actually save the States some money.
  I hate to make the economic arguments to the States, but those are 
the facts. I am hopeful the States will understand this is not just 
good for their neighborhood, this is not just good for men, it is not 
just good for women and for children, and for society at large, it is 
also good for their bottom line and their ability to provide services 
to the poor.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It is not perfect. There are 
things in this bill I do not like. But we move the ball forward. We 
increase work a modest amount, a responsible amount. As someone who was 
in this chair leading the fight in 1996 for this bill and wanting the 
tough requirements on work, I am not someone who believes we need to 
dramatically increase that requirement. I know there will be an 
amendment potentially if we ever get to this bill to increase the work 
requirement to 40 hours. I will vote against that. The reason is 
because we do in this bill increase the actual work requirement from 20 
hours to 24.
  What does that mean? That means the amount of hours someone must be 
in work in order to be eligible for this program, assuming they did not 
get off the program to work themselves, they are actually on welfare 
but working, is increased from 20 to 24 hours. Then we have an 
additional 10 hours that was in the 1996 act that stays the same, an 
additional 10 hours to bring the total up to 34 hours. That 10 hours 
being sort of wraparound issues, whether it is job search or other 
types of improvement that individuals may be working on to get a better 
job, to increase their educational skills, get their GED, whatever the 
case may be.
  It is important to have a tougher work requirement to take single 
mothers out of the home for 40 hours a week, of which 16 of those hours 
will not be actually working--I don't see the benefit. What we have 
seen from all the studies is the thing that works the most is work. 
While these women--it is predominantly, overwhelmingly women--are not 
in a job outside of welfare, not on a payroll outside of welfare, they 
still are working and getting work experience.
  The additional time is well spent to actually find a job outside of 
welfare,

[[Page 5703]]

but I don't think at least at that point in time, because of the 
transition of a 40-hour requirement, that is going to be beneficial in 
the long term for these women. I will not support that.
  I would have supported a modest increase in daycare funding. What we 
have done is fundamentally change the expectation of what daycare is. 
This is more money than people on welfare could ever hope to need when 
it comes to daycare. This is a whole other agenda trying to be advanced 
on the bill in the name of welfare to work. But it is simply universal 
daycare under a different guise. I will not support that.
  But we have a lot of steps taken in the right direction in this bill. 
I am hopeful, again, we can get bipartisan cooperation from people who 
understand the importance of this legislation in getting it passed and 
putting those work requirements back on 28 States that right now do not 
have them so we can begin the process again in turning lives around and 
improving the quality of lives of children in the poorest neighborhoods 
in our society.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  HARRY BURK REID, MY 15TH GRANDCHILD

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish the people I work with in the Senate 
knew my father. My father was named Harry Reid, the same name I have. I 
always looked up to my dad. My dad was uneducated. He didn't graduate 
from eighth grade, but he was very smart. My father read a lot and he 
could do things people in college could not do.
  For example, he was a miner and he could go underground with a 
compass, come above ground and do a map. People in college cannot do 
that. He could do underground mapping. He was a carpenter. He could 
completely overhaul an engine, a valve job, the whole works. He was a 
blacksmith, hit tempered steel, all that kind of stuff. And he was a 
much bigger man than I. I always admired his physical strength. He 
could put a 50-gallon drum full of water or gas, whatever, in the back 
of a truck by himself.
  The reason I mention Harry Reid tonight, my father, is last night my 
15th grandchild was born, a little boy. As I said, I have 15 
grandchildren now. The reason I mention my father is because my son 
told me, this morning, that they have named my grandson after me. So I 
have a little grandson named Harry Reid.
  I hope, as the years go by, that little boy will look at his 
grandfather in the same way that I looked at my dad.
  I am proud of the name Harry Reid. I even sign my ``H'' like my dad 
did. My dad said once he saw on a window an ``H'' like that, like I 
sign my name. So that is the way children are in looking up to their 
parents and grandparents.
  As I said, I hope I can set an example that my grandson will respect 
and admire. I know it is a burden, and I say this seriously, to have 
the name Harry Reid, because I have a lot of people who like me, but I 
have a lot of people who do not like me because of my political stands.
  But separate and apart from all that, I hope my grandson will have an 
example set by me that is one he will believe in--family and keeping 
families together--and being a young man who conducts himself in a 
proper manner, and that, hopefully, some of the things I have done and 
will do will be something he will look to as a role model that maybe he 
will adhere to.
  So I want the Record to reflect how much I appreciate my son Josh and 
his lovely wife Tamsen for giving me this great honor and to have 
someone who, through all generations of time, will be the third Harry 
Reid. I am not a junior because my dad had no middle name. And this 
little boy is not a junior, or could not be anyway, because I am not 
his father. His name is different. He has a different middle name, 
Burk, named after his other grandparents, their last name.
  So anyway, I am flattered and respectful of my son and daughter-in-
law for naming the child after me. I want the Record to reflect how 
much I love and appreciate my son Josh and all my children who have 
done so much to honor me with their exemplary lives, at least from a 
parent's perspective.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Senator Kerry's Record

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are currently discussing plans both for 
later tonight and tomorrow and the next 2 weeks. I had the opportunity 
to talk to the Democratic leader, and that discussion will go on for a 
while. While we are in, and have been in a quorum call, I wanted to 
take the opportunity to address an issue that has to do with gasoline 
prices, energy policy, something that every single American who drives 
or benefits from driving is feeling; that is, the price at the gasoline 
pump.
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts was in the news this 
morning expressing his concern about rising gasoline prices. He is 
right to be concerned. We are all concerned. But what he should be 
concerned about is his own dismal record in terms of addressing this 
very issue. Again and again, he has taken positions that result not in 
what Americans want--that is, lower gas prices--but again and again in 
his position as a Senator and before, he has been on the other side and 
engaged in policies and supporting policies that drive the price of 
gasoline higher and higher.
  The Senate record is familiar to most, but in 1983, when he was 
Lieutenant Governor in Massachusetts, the Dukakis-Kerry administration 
supported a $50 million gas tax hike on the citizens of Massachusetts. 
In 1993, in the Senate, he voted for the largest tax increase in 
American history, the Clinton tax bill, which increased the Federal 
gasoline tax by 4.3 cents. He also voted twice for the Clinton-Gore Btu 
tax which, had it been signed into law, would have increased gas taxes 
by another 7.5 cents per gallon.
  The following year he backed a 50-cent increase in the gas tax for 
all Americans. He wrote a letter at that time to the Boston Globe 
expressing his disappointment that a scorecard issued by a deficit 
reduction organization in Washington did not accurately reflect his 
support for this half-dollar gas tax increase.
  The list goes on. The Senator from Massachusetts also wants the 
United States to accept the Kyoto Protocol which, according to Wharton 
Economic Forecasting Associates, would raise gasoline prices an 
additional 65 cents per gallon. And just last year, Senator Kerry voted 
for climate change legislation which would have imposed a Kyoto-style 
regulation on 80 percent of the U.S. economy and would have raised 
gasoline prices by 40 cents a gallon.
  That is a little bit of the history and the background for this new 
concern about gasoline prices by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kerry.
  Put aside a moment the impact that these proposals would have had on 
an issue that we have talked a lot about on the floor today, and that 
is jobs and the importance of job creation. The most immediate impact, 
the most immediate result of Senator Kerry's positions would be to 
force America's consumers to pay at least a dollar more for each gallon 
of gasoline they purchase, and that is a conservative estimate.
  It is also worth noting that Senator Kerry has consistently opposed 
any increase in domestic production of energy and any proposal that 
would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Energy bill, which we 
all know fell two votes short in the Senate last year, is probably the 
most recent example. Senator Kerry has expressed opposition to this 
measure, although he was not present in the Senate when we cast

[[Page 5704]]

that critical vote on the conference report.
  In opposing the Energy bill, Senator Kerry is opposing not just the 
creation of 800,000 new jobs, he is opposing the development of new 
domestic resources, new resources that come in the United States, 
including such things as renewable resources such as wind and solar 
energy. To that you could add clean burning ethanol, and to that you 
could add advanced coal technology or zero emission nuclear energy and, 
yes, the development of domestic oil and gas resources as well.
  I come to the floor to mention all of this, especially mentioning his 
record on the floor of the Senate, because it is simply very difficult 
to take seriously Senator Kerry when he says he is concerned about high 
gas prices and then blames others for not having addressed them. 
Throughout his career, Senator Kerry has consistently taken positions 
that will result in even higher gas prices and lower domestic supplies 
of energy and jobs lost.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts, indeed, wants to engage in a 
serious discussion about energy policy, I ask that he come back to the 
Senate and help us do what we should be doing, and that is pass an 
Energy bill which he and his party unfortunately have been blocking for 
months.
  I appreciate the opportunity to review the record since we had this 
available time. I do challenge Senator Kerry to engage in a serious 
discussion about helping us pass that very policy which we know would 
lower gasoline prices in the United States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Senator Kerry's Record

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, having just heard the majority leader come 
to the floor of the Senate and discuss the record of my colleague, 
Senator John Kerry, I thought it might be useful to respond just a bit.
  This Chamber, given some of the dialog--and especially the dialog I 
heard a few minutes ago--only lacks the balloons, the buttons, and the 
brass band for being a political convention in a full-scale support of 
a candidate in a Presidential operation, a Presidential campaign.
  It is not my desire nor my intent to talk about the Presidential 
race. But when I hear people come to the floor and decide to talk about 
John Kerry's record on energy as a Member of the Senate, I think it is 
important to respond.
  There are a great many allegations being made about Senator John 
Kerry's record and many--most that I have heard recently--have been 
flat out untrue, just wrong. One of the great things about the First 
Amendment in this country is you can say whatever you want to say and, 
in politics, you can misrepresent someone's record and nobody seems to 
care very much.
  Let me talk for a couple of minutes about these issues. First of all, 
let's talk about the energy bill. We don't have an energy bill right 
now. Do you know why? It failed by two votes in the Senate. I voted for 
it. So did the minority leader. Do you know why it failed by two votes 
in the Senate? Because the majority leader in the U.S. House stuck a 
provision in that bill that cost him four, or five, or six votes 
against the bill in the Senate. Now I hear the majority leader of the 
U.S. House blame Senator Daschle for us not having an energy bill. I 
looked at that in the paper and I thought, what on earth can he be 
thinking about? He killed the energy bill by sticking in this insidious 
provision, a retroactive waiver on MTBE liability. He stuck that 
provision in. He demanded it. It was killed on the floor of the Senate 
by two votes.
  That bill would have passed the Senate easily without that provision 
stuck in by the majority leader of the U.S. House. So to have him talk 
about Senator Daschle as somehow holding up the energy bill in this 
country doesn't make much sense to me. It is just wrong. He is the one 
who killed that bill on the floor of the Senate with this provision 
that he inserted.
  As to the comments this evening, we have the majority leader come to 
the floor of the Senate and he seems to imply that my colleague, John 
Kerry, is against production, against conservation, against efficiency, 
against renewables. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. I can tell you what 
Senator Kerry is for. I sat in meeting after meeting with him over 
recent years on energy policy, most of which I agree with him on. 
Sometimes we disagreed.
  I will tell you something. This is a man who is very concerned about 
energy policy in this country. When we talk about these issues, it 
seems to me it would best behoove us to talk seriously about serious 
issues.
  That has not been the case with respect to Senator Kerry's record on 
energy, as misrepresented on the floor of the Senate this evening. So 
let's talk about a couple of these issues.
  Renewable energy: Senator Kerry supports renewable energy--wind 
energy, biodiesel energy, a whole series of areas of renewable energy--
that will improve this country's energy supply and extend America's 
energy supply. He supports it.
  Efficiency titles in the Energy bill: Senator Kerry very much 
supports improved efficiency of all the appliances we use every single 
day.
  Conservation: Senator Kerry has a very strong record on conservation, 
and the same is true with respect to production.
  There has been a lot of misrepresentation. In fact, I heard some 
misrepresentation recently that Senator Kerry voted for a 50-cent-a-
gallon gas tax increase. That is totally untrue, just wrong, flat out 
wrong.
  Talk is cheap so people can come here and assert whatever they like, 
but when I hear it, I am going to come to the floor of the Senate and 
say it is not true.
  The fact is, this country chooses its leader by going to the ballot 
box, and this country is owed a serious debate about serious issues. 
Regrettably, it too seldom gets a serious debate about serious issues. 
Yes, energy is a serious issue and we have a very serious energy 
problem and we need an Energy bill passed in the U.S. Congress. Do not 
blame Democrats for the failure to pass an Energy bill. It failed in 
the Senate by two votes. It passed the House and failed in the Senate 
by two votes, and everyone here understands that at least four or five 
of those two votes that would have been used to pass that bill resulted 
in a negative vote because of what the majority leader in the House 
did. Everyone understands that. All you have to do is read a newspaper 
and you will understand that. People are concerned about the price of 
gasoline in this country, and they should be. When I say we need an 
energy policy, we are now close to 60 percent of our oil coming from 
off our shores, often from troubled parts of the world. That is 
dangerous. The fact is, our economy is reliant on energy sources from 
parts of the world that are very troubled. If we want to keep importing 
oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, and other parts of the 
world, the fact is it will injure us inevitably, it will injure our 
economy, and it will injure our opportunity to create new jobs, expand 
and provide hope and opportunity for the American people.
  We need to go much further than the kind of debate we traditionally 
held on energy issues, and that is where Senator Kerry talked about the 
future. We need to talk about issues such as hydrogen and fuel cells 
and pole-vault over some of this to talk about how we are going to 
avoid in the future putting gasoline through carburetors and being 
dependent on OPEC countries.
  Tomorrow there is a meeting of OPEC ministers. They already cut 
production and are talking about cutting production again. This country 
ought to jawbone and use the leverage we have to say we need increased 
production. We have gas prices that are going through the roof.
  I do not know what the President is going to do, whether he is going 
to involve himself and try to jawbone

[[Page 5705]]

OPEC, but I think he should. We have a serious problem, and it is not 
just the current spike in gas prices. That happens. It is now happening 
because of a series of factors. One is the cutback in OPEC production. 
The second is an imbalance with respect to fuels that are coming into 
refineries and the lack of refinery capacity. There is a whole series 
of factors. Even as we address the shorter term, we have to think about 
the longer term.
  I will say to those who want to be critical of Senator Kerry's 
record, there is nobody in the Senate, in my judgment, who has cared 
more and worked harder for longer term solutions for an energy policy 
in this country. It does not serve the country or responsible political 
debate to come to the Senate and slap people around with bad 
information. I am sick and tired of that. If you want to turn this into 
a political convention, get some balloons, bunting, put up crepe paper, 
hire a brass band, and pretend this is a political convention. But it 
is not a political convention. This is the Chamber of the United States 
Senate, and we ought to, it seems to me, talk about what the real 
policy positions are of the respective candidates and have a 
competition of ideas.
  I, frankly, think both political parties have something good to offer 
this country, and the interaction of both parties and responsible 
debate over a long period of time strengthens our country. But I get a 
little weary of this machine that is so relentless in trying to 
misrepresent someone's position and slap that misrepresentation around 
for a while. That is not the way this Presidential campaign ought to be 
waged. It is not fair to Senator Kerry, who is not in this Chamber, for 
people to come and mischaracterize his record. I understand people have 
the right to do it. I am just saying it is not fair. So I hope as we 
begin to think through some of these issues in the future that we 
understand there is a place for a political campaign for the Presidency 
in this country. It is in Ohio, New York, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, 
and California--all around America--and there the bands do play, and 
there the balloons are used to great effect, and people love the 
political system. That is fine. But I worry a lot about the Senate 
Chamber being used to misrepresent someone's position on an issue that 
is as important as this.
  What bothered me and persuaded me to come to the Senate floor this 
moment are two things: One is something I read in the newspaper about 2 
or 3 days ago in which the allegation by the majority leader of the 
other body was it was Senator Daschle who was holding up an Energy 
bill. Nonsense. The majority leader of the other body is the one who 
killed the Energy bill by putting in this insidious provision, a 
retroactive waiver of MTBE liability. That is a plain fact.
  Second, I heard a speech on the floor of the Senate a moment ago that 
was just a pure campaign speech that had nothing to do with the merits 
on one side. It had everything to do with misrepresenting the merits on 
the other side. That is unfair. I am going to come to the floor again 
when I hear this done.
  I hope the American people are treated to a serious debate about 
serious issues. Energy is a serious issue. John Kerry is a serious 
candidate for the Presidency, and he has strong positions, I think 
defensible positions, on energy dealing with production, conservation, 
efficiency, renewables, and more. I am sure if he were here to stand up 
and speak in response to the majority leader, he would want to do that.
  I came to the floor simply to say I hope the American people are 
treated to a debate that is accurate about energy positions and energy 
policy by the two candidates. I, for one, feel very comfortable with 
the long-term view of energy policy as advocated by Senator John Kerry.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question 
through the Chair?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have not been able to hear all of the 
statement of the Senator from North Dakota, but I am sure, as always, 
it was right on the point. There is something I would like to direct in 
the form of a question to him.
  I was asked to appear on a television show this afternoon, and I was 
happy to do that. The reason I appeared on the show was to respond to 
some TV ads that are starting tomorrow where the Bush campaign is 
paying millions of dollars to run an ad around the country that is 
absolutely fabricated. The ad said Senator Kerry voted for a 50-cent-
per-gallon gas tax increase. Is the Senator aware that this statement 
is baseless, never happened, and that millions of dollars are going to 
be spent starting tomorrow saying Senator Kerry has previously in the 
Senate voted for a 50-cent-a-gallon increase in taxes for gasoline?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say in response to the question from the 
Senator from Nevada, I have done what little research I could, because 
I understood this ad was being set to run across the country that said 
Senator Kerry has voted for a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase. My 
understanding is it is simply untrue. If somebody has evidence of which 
I am not aware, bring it to the floor. My understanding is it is not 
true.
  It is similarly not true that Senator Kerry is opposed to renewable 
fuels, opposed to conservation, opposed to increased efficiency of 
appliances which was alleged a few minutes ago on the Senate floor. 
They are not grounded in fact.
  As I said, everybody has a right to say these things. It is the 
political system. This is the floor of the Senate, and those of us who 
hear something we know is demonstrably false also have a right to come 
to the floor to say this is not the best of what this system has to 
offer the American people. This ought to be a competition of ideas of 
both sides using facts and saying here is where one stands and here is 
where the other stands, and here is why and take your pick. That is 
what the political system ought to be about.
  To the extent there are exaggerations--and there sure are in 
politics; they occur on the political stage all around the country--
that is fine as well; that is politics.
  It is a bit different especially to come to the Senate floor and 
misrepresent the record of Senator Kerry.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2943

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment 2943, which is 
the Cornyn-Bingaman amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kennedy be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. This amendment is very simple. It would correct a 
technical problem caused during the passage of the Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996. Section 411 of the welfare 
law reads that State and local governments may not use their own 
resources to provide nonemergency health services to nonqualified 
immigrants unless the State has passed new legislation authorizing such 
expenditures.
  This provision has caused quite a bit of confusion. As a matter of 
fact, when I was Attorney General of Texas I was asked to interpret 
this provision. It was during the course of that official action that I 
discovered the Federal law, because our State legislature had not 
acted, had unintended consequences. It is safe to say this provision 
has been read by State and local governments with varying 
interpretations.
  Essentially, the current law imposes a double standard on State and 
local governments. Because certain Federal public health programs are 
exempt from this requirement, identical State

[[Page 5706]]

and local government health programs are not. The end result is more 
legal and administrative costs on State and local governments, even 
though the provision has no enforcement mechanism. Even without the 
confusion, section 411 makes no practical sense. We should not put up 
more roadblocks for those who want to provide preventive treatment, 
especially when it comes to potential community problems such as 
infectious diseases.
  By giving localities control over preventive services, here again at 
their own expense, not at Federal taxpayers' expense, we ensure local 
funds are spent where the people who know best believe they should be 
spent. Ultimately, this will have the effect of driving down health 
care costs by preventing treatable illnesses before they become acute 
and before they require expensive taxpayer-supported care, usually in 
an emergency room where anyone, no matter who they are, knows they can 
be treated and indeed must be treated according to a Federal mandate 
which I know is an interest of the presiding Senator, particularly 
because it is an unfunded Federal mandate.
  Our amendment would simply strike the word ``health'' from section 
411 of the welfare law. This step clarifies that State and local 
governments can use their own funds to provide health services to 
immigrants, including primary and preventive health care and infectious 
disease services, without enacting a new law. It is a commonsense step 
and one I hope my colleagues will support.
  This amendment is also widely supported by several well-respected 
national associations, including the American Hospital Association, the 
National Association of Public Hospitals and Public Health Systems, the 
National Association of Counties, and the Catholic Health Association.


                           Amendment No. 2942

  I also want to briefly discuss another amendment, No. 2942. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman be added as a cosponsor to 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from Connecticut has a deep understanding of 
the importance of child support enforcement, and I like me, learned 
about how critical that issue is during his service as his State's 
attorney general, as I did during my service as attorney general of my 
State.
  This amendment features two positive reforms for child support 
enforcement. It encourages States to adopt electronic payment systems 
by 2008. While States can opt out of that if they choose to, it will 
help get payments to custodial parents more quickly than is currently 
done now. It creates an option for States to centralize all child 
support payments to reduce confusion among employers who withhold child 
support payments from the wages of their employees, and it will ensure 
children get the financial support they need on time which, of course, 
is our universal goal.
  I hope my colleagues will support this second amendment as well.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from each of these 
organizations be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                                  of Counties,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 2004.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cornyn and Bingaman: On behalf of the 
     National Association of Counties (NACo), I would like to 
     express our support for the Cornyn-Bingaman amendment to the 
     Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 
     2003. The amendment, as you know, would clarify that states 
     and counties may use their own funds to provide critical 
     preventative health care services to immigrants.
       NACo is the only national organization representing county 
     governments. Many of our country's 3066 counties own and 
     operate hospitals and other health care facilities. Without 
     the passage of this amendment, county governments are placed 
     in a precarious position if they decide to provide 
     preventative care to unqualified immigrants in order to 
     protect the local community's health. As has been repeatedly 
     demonstrated, the provision of preventative care is less 
     costly over time than providing evasive services in emergency 
     rooms. However, the cost savings to preventative care are far 
     outweighed by the protection provided to the community's 
     public health as a whole.
       Counties serve as safety-net providers, ultimately 
     financing and providing care for our Medicaid ineligible and 
     un-enrolled populations. We support the ability to finance 
     this care in the most appropriate manner.
       Thank you for your leadership and efforts to ensure that 
     counties are able to protect the health of our local 
     communities. We look forward to working with you on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               The Catholic Health


                             Association of the United States,

                                    St. Louis, MO, March 30, 2004.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: On behalf of the Catholic Health 
     Association of the United States (CHA), the national 
     leadership organization of more then 2,000 Catholic health 
     care sponsors, systems, facilities, and related 
     organizations, I am writing in support of your efforts to 
     ensure that state and local governments have the ability to 
     use their funds to provide non-emergency health services to 
     legal and undocumented immigrants.
       Specifically, CHA supports your amendment to strike the 
     word ``health'' from Section 411 of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 (PRWORA), which has been interpreted by some states to 
     prohibit the use of any state and local funds to provide 
     lifesaving health care to immigrants. This interpretation 
     stands in sharp contrast to the thrust of PRWORA, which 
     generally gave states greater authority to determine welfare 
     rules, and the resulting confusion has had a negative impact 
     on the health of immigrants in many states.
       By clarifying that states and local governments may use 
     their own funds to provide health services to immigrants, 
     including important preventive care, your amendment can help 
     ensure that hospitals and clinics have the clarity they need 
     to serve the best interest of all of their patients. As 
     organizations founded in a faith tradition and committed to 
     the principles of Catholic social justice teaching, Catholic 
     hospitals recognize and affirm the inherent dignity of every 
     human being. Your amendment helps to further that principle.
       Thank you again for your efforts to ensure that state and 
     local governments have the certainty they need to use their 
     own funds to provide appropriate health care to all 
     immigrants. If we can be of any assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                       Rev. Michael D. Place, STD,
                            President and Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Snowe, on the passage of her amendment to increase the 
mandatory funding levels for the Child Care and Development Fund by $6 
billion over 5 years. I enthusiastically support this amendment, as it 
is designed to help so many families with young children by ensuring 
that those children are properly cared for while their parents are at 
work.
  Unfortunately, we know that more than 10 million children in the 
United States are left unsupervised after school on a regular basis. We 
know that the welfare rolls have been cut nearly 60 percent since 1996, 
and therefore, this statistic will only continue to grow as more and 
more parents work. Further, with cuts in State childcare funding, many 
working families are faced with no care for their children due to 
waiting lists and higher childcare costs.
  But, with the passage of this amendment, my home State of Ohio alone 
would receive over $34 million in additional childcare funds next 
fiscal year and more than $266 million over the next 5 years. This 
translates into more children receiving care and more parents with the 
peace of mind that their children are being properly attended to while 
they cannot be at home.
  Again, I commend Senator Snowe for her leadership on this issue.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 5707]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are in discussion now determining the 
best pathway to completion on the underlying bill, the welfare bill, an 
important bill that I know both sides of the aisle do want to 
appropriately address, through amendments and through the debate 
process, and we are working on the best way to accomplish that.
  As I set out really 3 weeks ago, but in the early part of last week, 
we have set this week aside to address welfare and we are doing just 
that. But I really need to do everything possible to see that we do 
complete it this weekend. To help accomplish that, I will be sending a 
cloture motion to the desk on the pending committee substitute.


                             cloture motion

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment to Calendar No. 305, H.R. 4, an act to reauthorize 
     and improve the program of block grants to States for 
     temporary assistance for needy families, improve access to 
     quality child care, and for other purposes.

         Bill Frist, Charles E. Grassley, John E. Sununu, Conrad 
           Burns, Lamar Alexander, Peter G. Fitzgerald, Larry E. 
           Craig, John Cornyn, Robert F. Bennett, John Ensign, 
           Orrin G. Hatch, Mike Enzi, Mitch McConnell, Ted 
           Stevens, Norm Coleman, James M. Inhofe, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison.

  Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the quorum under rule XXII be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________