[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23154-23199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3058, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 
     independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Kennedy modified amendment No. 2063, to provide for an 
     increase in the Federal minimum wage.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I note that my partner 
and comanager of the bill, the Senator from Washington, and I are here 
and ready to do business. We were ready to do business yesterday. We 
had one rollcall vote. There were more than 40 amendments filed 
yesterday. I know there are many others who have or are thinking about 
amendments. But we have enough work to do now if Members will come 
forward and offer their amendments that are filed or talk with us to 
see if they can be accepted.
  We would like very much to move forward on this bill today, and 
perhaps complete work on it by 8 o'clock tonight when the baseball game 
is on television. But hope springs eternal. We would love to see 
Members come forward. I think more are ready to go.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2113

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 23155]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2113.

  Mr. BOND. 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: Limits the availability of funds under this Act for use in 
                 paying for eminent domain activities)

       Insert the following on page 348, after line 5, and 
     renumber accordingly:
       ``Sec. 321. No funds in this Act may be used to support any 
     federal, state, or local projects that seek to use the power 
     of eminent domain, unless eminent domain is employed only for 
     a public use: Provided, That for purposes of this section, 
     public use shall not be construed to include economic 
     development that primarily benefits private entities: 
     Provided further, That any use of funds for mass transit, 
     railroad, airport, seaport or highway projects as well as 
     utility projects which benefit or serve the general public 
     (including energy-related, communication-related, water-
     related and wastewater-related infrastructure), other 
     structures designated for use by the general public or which 
     have other common-carrier or public-utility functions that 
     serve the general public and are subject to regulation and 
     oversight by the government, and projects for the removal of 
     blight (including areas identified by units of local 
     government for recovery from natural disasters) or 
     brownfields as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief 
     and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub. Law 107-118) shall 
     be considered a public use for purposes of eminent domain: 
     Provided further, That the Government Accountability Office, 
     in consultation with the National Academy for Public 
     Administration, organizations representing state and local 
     governments, and property rights organizations, shall conduct 
     a study to be submitted to the Congress within 12 months of 
     the enactment of this Act on the nationwide use of eminent 
     domain, including the procedures used and the results 
     accomplished on a state-by-state basis as well as the impact 
     on individual property owners and on the affected 
     communities.''.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there has been much discussion with many 
Members who are interested in this. I am filing it now, and I will ask 
unanimous consent that others who wish to be added as original 
cosponsors add their names. But I wanted to get it here on the floor so 
everybody could have a chance to look at it. We will shortly set it 
aside because I think we are perhaps ready to go forward with the 
minimum wage amendments.
  At this point, permit me to explain what the amendment is about.
  This amendment is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo, 
et al. v. City of New London, et al., in which the Court upheld by a 5-
to-4 majority decision the use of eminent domain by the city of New 
London, CT. The Court noted that New London utilized a comprehensive 
plan that seeks to revitalize the city by using the land occupied by 
some 115 privately owned properties as well as 32 acres of land 
formally occupied by a naval facility to accommodate a $300 million 
Pfizer research facility, a waterfront conference hotel, a ``small 
urban village,'' as well as 80 new residences. The opinion seems to 
rely on ``affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what 
public needs justify the use of the takings power.''
  The opinion also notes that nothing precludes any State from placing 
further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.
  As discussed by the four-Justice dissenting opinion, this majority 
opinion goes much farther than the facts of the case and would 
essentially allow the use of eminent domain in virtually any 
circumstance where the locality believes some benefit could be derived.
  In particular, the four-Justice dissenting opinion concludes that 
``under the banner of economic development, all private property is now 
vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so 
long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to a owner who will use it in 
a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the 
process.''
  There are a number of problems that have already been raised in the 
eminent domain field. I say none are more striking than the proposal by 
a developer to condemn the land on which the home of one of the 
Justices in the majority opinion sits to put a new hotel and the Lost 
Freedom Bar on his property.
  In my State of Missouri, we have seen the use of eminent domain for a 
private purpose having tremendously harmful impacts in the Sunset Hills 
community in St. Louis County. Eminent domain was used by a private 
developer to condemn a large number of homes, forcing the residents out 
of their homes. The residents, in expectation of being forced out of 
their homes, purchased other houses. They began to move into other 
houses. The private developer went broke. Now these people are stuck 
with two mortgages, and the place they left is being declared a 
blighted area because everybody has left.
  This has had a double impact, not only on the homeowners who were 
forced to take out a second mortgage but on a community which now is 
blighted, and some enterprising developers are seeking tax subsidies 
and other help to renovate a blighted property.
  I believe most of us--and certainly the people I listen to in my home 
State of Missouri--believe this is absolutely wrong.
  When you look at the New London case, you see how a tragic result can 
occur under the Kelo decision if legislatures do not act. The Governor 
of Missouri has called for a task force to study eminent domain.
  I believe we have responsibility here to make sure that Federal funds 
are not used in the taking of property for a private use and utilizing 
Federal funds to bolster that effort.
  In the Kelo case, the dissenting opinion notes that the petitioners 
are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in one of the 
neighborhoods subject to eminent domain. One of the petitioners lived 
in the house that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was 
born in the house in 1918. Her husband has lived there since their 
marriage in 1946, and their petitioner son lives next door with his 
family. Moreover, the record makes no claim that these are anything but 
well-maintained houses that do not pose any source of social harm, 
unlike the circumstances of several earlier cases cited in the majority 
opinion.
  The opinion warns that despite the majority opinion's reliance on the 
city's comprehensive plan, there is nothing in the majority opinion 
that prohibits property transfers generated with less care, that are 
less comprehensive, that happen to result from a less elaborate 
process, where the only projected advantage is the incidence of higher 
taxes or the hope to transform an already prosperous city into an even 
more prosperous one.
  Despite my misgivings about the Kelo case and its implications, this 
amendment today is very narrow and merely limits the availability of 
Federal funds from within this act for the year for which it is 
applicable for use in funding eminent domain activities. The key issue 
in this amendment is that these funds should not be used to provide 
Federal support for eminent domain activities that primarily benefit 
private entities. The amendment recognizes the importance of supporting 
eminent domain activities in support of transportation projects, 
utility projects, and projects to remedy blight. Funds may still be 
used from the Federal sources in this act for these projects.
  Moreover, the amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study that 
analyzes the use of eminent domain throughout the Nation, as well as 
the results accomplished by these uses of eminent domain.
  I know some of my colleagues are proposing significant substantive 
authorizing legislation which would have a much broader band. This 
objective is worthwhile. I hope to join them at a later stage. This is 
just a starting step. It is a starting point to make sure eminent 
domain for private purposes is not funded in the coming year from funds 
from the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban 
Development, and related agencies bill.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment. It 
establishes a very important principle. I hope to have a very solid 
vote for this

[[Page 23156]]

amendment when it comes to the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for offering this 
amendment. The Kelo v. New London decision by the Supreme Court came as 
a great shock to many. The amendment being offered seeks to impose some 
meaningful limitations on the potential use of eminent domain with the 
funds provided in this act. I emphasize this provision is limited to 
the funds in this act and does not seek to overturn the Kelo decision. 
It merely ensures that funds appropriated for 2006 for the Department 
of Transportation and Housing are not to use eminent domain for 
projects that primarily benefit private interests.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the chairman 
of the committee for offering this critical amendment at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from 
Washington. There are other amendments that are going to be offered, 
and at the appropriate time I will ask this be set aside so further 
amendments can be offered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I intend to offer two amendments to this 
legislation. I take a moment now to offer the first of those 
amendments. While I do that, I thank my colleague from Missouri and my 
colleague from the State of Washington for their work on this piece of 
legislation. This is an appropriations subcommittee bill on which they 
have done an excellent job. I appreciate that.
  I will offer an amendment at the completion of my comments. The 
amendment deals with the issue of contracting, particularly contracting 
in Iraq, and also now contracting in this country for reconstruction of 
the Gulf States that were hit so hard by Hurricane Katrina and then 
Rita. I will talk about the reason I am offering this and point out I 
have offered it previously, and I lost in the vote that was conducted 
in the Senate. However, I have previously indicated I do not intend to 
be discouraged by losing a vote. I will ask the Congress to reconsider 
by having another vote, and I will do it again following this if I am 
not successful.
  Let me describe the circumstances that bring me to the conclusion we 
need a special committee of the type that Harry S. Truman led when he 
was a Senator. Incidentally, he was a Democrat Senator who had the 
Senate establish what was called the Truman Committee to investigate 
waste, fraud, and abuse in defense spending back in the middle of what 
became World War II, the middle of the Second World War. With a 
Democrat President, a Democrat Senator was doing investigative hearings 
about waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to spending in the area of 
defense. He uncovered billions and billions and billions of dollars of 
waste. Good for him. I am sure it was not pleasant for the White House 
because Senator Truman was a member of the party of the President at 
that point. Nonetheless, he did what he believed was important and 
right for this country. It was very important to have done.
  These days we have something happening with respect to the country of 
Iraq. We have a war in Iraq. We also have reconstruction programs for 
the country of Iraq paid for by the American taxpayers. We have 
contracts that are sole-source, no-bid contracts given to some very 
large corporations. We have tales of horror about the waste of the 
taxpayers' money, and nobody seems to care very much.
  We also now have similar tales with respect to contracting--again, 
no-bid, sole-source contracting--with respect to the reconstruction and 
the response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita.
  Let me describe just a few of these, if I might. First, let me talk 
about contracting in Iraq. We have a substantial amount of contracting 
in Iraq, no-bid contracts, that are worth billions of dollars. I have 
held six or seven hearings on this subject. It ranges from the small, a 
fellow holding up a towel, a hand towel, because he worked for 
Halliburton Corporation, which was suppose to buy towels for our troops 
in Iraq. He holds up a hand towel and says: I was the purchasing agent 
and was supposed to buy towels for the troops. But the company wanted 
their logo imprinted on the towels, which nearly doubled the price.
  So the American taxpayer paid twice the price, or nearly twice the 
price, for these towels because the company wanted the logo on the 
towel.
  He said they were paying $7,500 a month lease on SUVs in Iraq; 
$85,000 brand new trucks were left by the side of the road because they 
had a flat tire and torched; $85,000 trucks discontinued to be used and 
left by the side of the road because they had a plugged fuel pump, and 
therefore torched. These purchasing agents were told it didn't matter, 
these are cost-plus contracts. It does not matter that money is wasted, 
they could spend what they wanted to spend. They were told the good old 
American taxpayer will pick up the tab.
  We had a man named Rory in charge of food service, a supervisor at a 
food service area in Iraq. Rory described what his instructions were 
from Halliburton. His instructions were: If a government auditor comes 
by, you get out of there. You refuse to talk to a government auditor. 
If you talk to an auditor that comes by to try to evaluate what is 
going on, one of two things will happen to you. You will either be 
fired, or you will be moved to an area in Iraq that is under active 
hostile action. Those are your choices.
  Rory decided to tell what was going on. He said they were feeding 
soldiers who did not exist. We have read the headlines, charging for 
42,000 soldiers to be fed every day; 42,000 meals, three times a day. 
It turns out there are only 14,000 soldiers. A big error? Maybe. Rory 
says it was happening in his area, about 4,000 or 5,000 soldiers in his 
area. He said: By the way, we had expired food. The date stamp had long 
since expired, and we were told by the supervisors, it does not matter, 
just feed the food to the troops. Convoys come through in hostile 
action, with lead in the meat and lead in the food in the back of the 
truck, and they were told to separate out the lead from the food, and 
by the way, for the bullets, give them to the supervisors as souvenirs 
and feed the food to the troops.
  That is on the record from a guy who worked there, came back to the 
country, and became a whistleblower. He says here is what is going on. 
We are being stolen blind.
  Let me show a picture of another fellow who testified at a hearing I 
held. Incidentally, I am doing the hearings not because I enjoy holding 
hearings. We are holding hearings because there is no oversight in the 
Congress. My intention is not to embarrass anybody but to represent the 
taxpayer.
  This represents hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. This 
fellow testified at a hearing I held. He said: In our area, we wrapped 
up hundred-dollar bills like this in Saran Wrap and told contractors--
this is contracting in Iraq--bring a bag because we pay in cash. If we 
owe you some money, bring a bag, we pay in cash. He said they actually 
played football in this office by passing back and forth these batches 
of hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. He said it was like the 
Old West. Just bring a bag; if we owe you money, we fill it with cash.
  When we hear these stories--and we pass emergency legislation for 
nearly $20 billion for reconstruction of Iraq; we spend $4 billion, $5 
billion, or $6 billion a month now in Iraq and Afghanistan--we push a 
massive amount of money out there with some of it, a fair amount of it, 
going, particularly in the reconstruction, to no-bid contracts, to big 
companies, and then we hear stories such as, OK, here is the task: We 
will put air conditioning in this building. So the big company gets 
money for air conditioning, subcontracts it, the subcontractor 
contracts it, and when the work is all done you have ceiling fans--and 
we paid for air conditioners. Who cares? Who is watching over this 
massive amount of waste, fraud, and

[[Page 23157]]

abuse? I will not go through it all, but it is unbelievable what is 
going on. Nobody seems to care.
  What is happening with respect to reconstruction down in the gulf as 
a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita? We hear people talking about 
$200 billion. This Congress has appropriated slightly more than $60 
billion already. We have seen, once again, some of the same companies 
performing no-bid contracts in Iraq now with no-bid contracts in the 
gulf.
  First, we start with waste, fraud, and abuse with FEMA, an 
organization that used to be something really special. I remember when 
my colleague, Fritz Hollings, sat in the chair behind me. Fritz 
Hollings, back in another era, said: We had two natural disasters down 
in our part of the country. The first disaster was a hurricane; the 
second disaster was FEMA.
  But then FEMA changed. All of a sudden James Lee Witt came in from a 
background that was unusual. The guy had experience. He came from a 
background of disaster preparedness, disaster emergency services. And 
all of a sudden, FEMA became something very special.
  I know that because my State had a community of 50,000 in the flood 
of 1997 in Grand Forks, ND, that required the evacuation of almost an 
entire city. It was a massive evacuation and flood response. Guess who 
was there at the lead. FEMA. Everybody there would say: What a 
remarkable organization. It worked. It knew what it was doing. It was 
sharp, on the ball, had plans, and it made things happen.
  Now what has happened to FEMA? Let me describe it. I will not go into 
great length about FEMA because everybody knows some of the top 
positions of FEMA were filled with cronies who had no experience at all 
in disaster preparedness or emergency services and that then it was 
subsumed into the Homeland Security Department. I do not need to go 
into great length about that.
  As shown in this picture, this is a truckdriver. We had a hearing the 
other day and he testified. This truckdriver, by the way, was 
contracted for by a company that was doing work for FEMA. He was asked 
to haul ice. You can see all these trucks in the picture. There were 
hundreds of trucks where he was sitting. He was asked to haul ice to 
the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
  He picked up a load of ice with his 18-wheeler in New York, and away 
he went. They said: We want you to go to Carthage, MO, so he drove his 
18-wheel truck, with a refrigerated trailer, to Carthage, MO. He got 
there, and they said: Well, but now you need to go to Maxwell Air Force 
Base in Alabama. He said: Well, it would have been good to know that 
when I left New York. I would have saved about 700 miles. But that was 
the way it was, so he headed off with his truck to Maxwell Air Force 
Base, AL.
  He got to Alabama with a load of ice, and was parked at the Air Force 
base with many others, hundreds of other trucks, we are told, that had 
food, blankets, clothing, ice--all the things the victims of Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita were begging for on television. He was sitting there, 
watching the little television in his truck, hearing the victims of 
these hurricanes describing what their needs were--and the needs were 
in the back of these trucks.
  He sat there 12 days--12 days--and he finally went up to them and 
said: What is going on? They said: We have changed our mind. We want 
you to drive your truck with ice to Idaho. He said: I didn't know there 
was a hurricane in Idaho, and I don't intend to haul this ice to Idaho. 
They said to him: You have a bad attitude. We are thinking of having 
the National Guard escort you off this base.
  It cannot be funny because it is so unbelievably inept. But about 2 
hours after they told him that, they said: OK, we have changed our 
mind; you won't go to Idaho. You haul this ice to Massachusetts. This 
is like that television program, ``Where in the World is Carmen San 
Diego?'' If I had a map, I would show you where these ice cubes went. 
To help the victims of the hurricane, directed apparently by FEMA and 
its contractor, they went from New York City, to Carthage, MO, to 
Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, to storage, now being paid for by the U.S. 
Government, in Massachusetts.
  We paid $15,000 for this one truck to haul ice cubes between New York 
and Massachusetts--destined for victims of the hurricane. What 
unbelievable--unbelievable--ineptness by a Federal agency. This 
truckdriver could have run FEMA better than that.
  When he testified, he said: It would have been easy. All they would 
have had to have is some sort of transportation system by which 
everybody calls in there and then you are directed. No such thing.
  He finally said to them, as he sat 12 days on the base before they 
sent him to Massachusetts with his ice cubes: I'll tell you what I'll 
do; I will pay for the ice cubes in my truck. I will pay you $1,500. 
They said: What are you going to do with them? He said: I'm going to 
haul them to Biloxi, MS, and give them away to victims who want them. 
They said: Who is going to sign for them? He said: It shouldn't matter 
to you. Once I have paid for them, you're out of the picture. They 
said: We can't do that. You haul them up to Massachusetts. We are going 
to store them.
  I told this story and somebody, the other day, said: Yeah. That's 
just one trucker. Oh, yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of good 
theories, right? This is one trucker, but he said there were hundreds 
of truckers in exactly the same situation.
  This was chaotic bungling. And who gets paid for this? Well, I assume 
the contractor FEMA had who directed these truckers to haul ice cubes 
from New York to Massachusetts or, incidentally, a trucker who hauls 
ice cubes from Canada down to Maxwell Air Force Base and back to 
Canada. What unbelievable waste.
  So now here is the second piece of all of this and why there needs to 
be investigations. This is a dormitory, by the way, as shown in this 
picture. It does not look much like a dormitory. It looks like a bunch 
of two-by-fours with blankets on top. This picture was taken last 
Saturday in Louisiana.
  These people are not from Louisiana. These people were brought in to 
replace some people from Louisiana who had jobs--qualified electricians 
who had jobs--to begin doing some work under a contract. Those workers 
from Louisiana are displaced now by workers, most of whom, 
incidentally, are expected to be undocumented workers, who will come in 
and work for a fraction of the wage you would pay the people from 
Louisiana who need the jobs.
  Why? Because Davis-Bacon is waived. What is Davis-Bacon? It is a 
foreign language to a lot of people, perhaps. The Davis-Bacon 
provision, in law for some long while, says when you are going to have 
the Federal Government come in and do contracting work, the Federal 
Government must pay the prevailing wage. The contractors who work for 
the Federal Government must pay the prevailing wage. They cannot try 
and ratchet up a contract for themselves by abusing their workers and 
deciding to pay them a tenth or a half of what they should be paid. You 
have to pay the prevailing wage.
  Well, the minute that happened in this area, the people who had the 
jobs these people now have--the people, by the way, who were from 
Louisiana, skilled electricians, who needed the work in the shadow of 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--lost their jobs. The foreman who was on 
the jobsite with them was here and talked to me about it. They lost 
their jobs because they were replaced by these folks: largely 
undocumented workers willing to work for a fraction of the cost--not 
from Louisiana. The folks from Louisiana who had those jobs lost them 
with reconstruction. That is what is happening.
  My point is this: There needs to be some investigation. I am not 
suggesting that it is an investigation to tarnish anybody. It is an 
investigation to evaluate what on Earth is wrong with the oversight for 
this waste and fraud and corruption that exists in these contracts.
  In the newspaper this morning, in the Style section, there is a 
picture of a

[[Page 23158]]

woman named Bunny Greenhouse, who was the highest ranking official in 
the Corps of Engineers in the U.S. Government working in the Pentagon. 
She lost her job. What a remarkable woman. She has three masters 
degrees.
  As an aside, I did not know this, but the story says she comes from a 
dirt-poor background. Her parents were uneducated. Her sister became a 
professor. Her brother, incidentally, scored 27,000 points in the 
National Basketball Association, and was rated one of the 50 best 
basketball players to ever play the game--Elvin Hayes.
  Bunny Greenhouse, this woman, rose to become the highest ranking 
civilian official in the Corps of Engineers. She just lost her job. Do 
you know why? All of her references, all of her evaluations were 
outstanding--outstanding. What a terrific person--until she started 
telling the ``old boys network'': You can't do what you are doing here. 
You can't give Halliburton big no-bid contracts and even have them 
sitting in on the meetings about the scope of the work. You cannot do 
that. It violates all of the rules and procedures. The minute she 
started interrupting the little playground that exists with these 
favorite no-bid contracts, all of a sudden she was persona non grata.
  You can read the story in this morning's Washington Post. She has 
been here twice to talk to us on Capitol Hill. Not many seem to care 
about that. But it is a symptom of something much more than her; it is 
a symptom of a culture about corruption, about waste, and, yes, fraud. 
If you wonder whether that is justified, I will be happy to give you, 
and anyone in the Senate who wants, the written testimony of a good 
many witnesses who have testified on these very issues.
  So my proposition is simple. My proposition is Congress should 
establish a type of Truman committee. I describe it as a Truman 
committee because we have done it before--a special committee that 
takes a hard look at all of this contracting that is going on and tries 
to shut down the waste, fraud, and abuse the taxpayers in this country 
should not have to be accepting and this Congress should not allow. 
This committee would not be necessary if we had aggressive oversight 
committees.
  Let me say that the chairman from Missouri and the ranking member 
from the State of Washington--this is an appropriations committee. I 
just described the job they have done. They have done a great job. This 
amendment has nothing to do with them. They are good appropriators. I 
am proud of their work. This appropriations subcommittee, is awfully 
good, and I am here to support the subcommittee work. So my amendment 
does not have anything to do with them.
  But I would say this: Almost everyone who watches this Congress work 
understands there is virtually no oversight and no accountability after 
we do appropriate that money. The American taxpayers deserve better 
than that. We have had a previous vote, and we had more than a majority 
of the Members of the Senate say no, they do not want to have anything 
to do with a special committee to take a look at investigating this 
waste, fraud, and abuse. I hope others will change their mind. This is 
not about Democrats and Republicans; it is about protecting the 
American taxpayers. And it is about making sure we root out the waste, 
fraud, and abuse that exists in these sole-source contracts. What is 
happening is almost unbelievable to me. Yet this Senate seems nearly 
asleep on these issues.
  Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2078 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2078.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 printed in the Record of Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make the point that this amendment 
differs from one we have considered previously in that the scope of the 
evaluation and investigation of expenditures and contracting would 
include not just with respect to Iraq but also the contracting and 
reconstruction in the gulf in relation to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
damages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing this 
forward. As I mentioned, this is an appropriations bill. It is a very 
important subject he has raised, but I raise a point of order under 
rule XVI that this is legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to rule V, I have offered proper 
notice to suspend the rules. My expectation would be we would have a 
vote on suspension of the rules. As the Senator knows, I referenced 
that in the Senate Journal last evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to suspend is debatable.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure be 
set aside so we can work out a time for a vote on the measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I, in fact, will agree to a time agreement 
at some point. I have no intention of extending debate. I do want to 
make some additional comments at some point when we set up a vote, but 
I understand there are others who wish to offer an amendment, so I will 
be happy to allow this to be set aside, after which I will consult with 
the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Washington about a time 
for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I believe there are 
some on this side who will want to respond. I hope we can get a tight 
timeframe because we are going to be very busy this week. We have to 
finish this measure.


                           Amendment No. 2113

  Mr. President, now, since it appears we are going to be having some 
action today, I ask unanimous consent that we bring up the amendment 
filed this morning, amendment No. 2113. I believe it can be adopted by 
a voice vote, with Senators who wish to speak on it permitted to speak 
during time later on today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and I look forward to 
action on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor on the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2115

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2115.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with, since copies have been given to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Senator Kennedy that would increase

[[Page 23159]]

the Federal minimum wage. I have offered an amendment myself. Although 
both of the amendments would raise the minimum wage by the same amount, 
$1.10 over 18 months, only my amendment recognizes the enormous burden 
mandates such as this one have on American's small business and works 
to alleviate that. We probably ought to be in agreement on this since 
the numbers are the same. All I do is add some things that will offset 
those burdens that have been placed with the minimum wage.
  When Senator Kennedy offered his original amendment, he referred to 
its economic effect as ``a drop in the bucket in the national 
payroll.'' A drop in the bucket in the national payroll? Comments like 
this are precisely why small business owners across the Nation feel 
that Washington, DC, politicians do not understand their needs.
  We must also bear in mind that these are the people who create jobs, 
who provide an increasing percentage of employment for all workers, 
including those with minimum skills. It is usually the small business 
that takes a person who has minimum skills and trains them to a higher 
level. Quite often, they train them to a higher level where they even 
start their own business or they go to work for somebody else, taking 
the skills from where they are to an even higher level.
  A lot of the problem with employment in the United States is that we 
don't have the people in the right places for the employment. They 
could be making more at what they are doing if they were in a different 
place. But sometimes they are not willing to move. They need more 
training, too. We have provisions for more training.
  I would like to mention a little facility we have in Casper, WY, that 
will train people to work on oil rigs, and placement is 100 percent. 
The minimum is $16, and depending on what part of it you do, how long 
you are there, and what other skills you pick up, it goes considerably 
higher than that.
  The mines in Campbell County, WY, are looking for additional 
employees. There are some requirements. You have to have a clean drug 
record. You have to be able to pass a drug test because when you are 
working around heavy equipment, if you don't have all of your 
capacities, you can hurt people, including yourself. That should not 
happen. So they do have requirements about having to have drug tests. 
But if you can pass the drug test, they will train you for the heavy 
equipment you need to operate in the mine. We are talking $50,000, 
$60,000, $70,000 without overtime, and then you have the right on both 
of those to have overtime as well, probably to the extent of whatever 
you are willing to put in and the law allows. There are some 
constraints on it since you are handling heavy equipment, but those are 
also nontraditional jobs.
  We had a marvelous hearing in the HELP Committee. We had a person 
from New York City. The young lady was talking about the training she 
had received in nontraditional jobs and the way her wages had 
increased. Quite frankly, at the present time she makes more than a 
U.S. Senator. What she is doing is putting rock trim on skyscrapers in 
New York. But there are some tremendous things out there, if a person 
gets the opportunity and takes the opportunity to increase their 
skills. If you are a minimum-skill person, if you are just doing the 
job and getting by and not learning anything, you are going to get 
minimum-skill wages.
  I mentioned just getting by, just putting in the time. There is a 
difference. I know when my dad was interviewing people for the shoe 
business, he sometimes said, after he had interviewed them: That person 
told me they had 5 years' experience. I asked them a few questions, and 
what they had is 1 month's experience 60 times because they never 
learned anything from the first day they were on the job. They didn't 
have basic skills. He believed in training people and making sure they 
had, in 5 years, actually 5 years' worth experience. I can guarantee 
you, after the very first short training time, they never had minimum 
wage. But it is tied to the skills.
  So to suggest that this is a drop in the bucket in the national 
payroll is a little bit offensive and does not recognize the job that 
small business is doing at getting people into the workforce and 
actually training them. It is particularly offensive to employers to 
suggest that a 41-percent increase in their labor cost, which is what 
is being proposed at this time, amounts to a drop in the bucket. A 41-
percent increase in labor costs forces a small businessperson to face 
choices such as whether to increase prices, which often is not a 
choice, or face a potential loss of customers from lack of service or 
whether to reduce spending on health insurance coverage or other 
benefits to employees or to terminate employees. These choices are far 
more significant than a drop in the bucket, particularly if you are the 
employee who got terminated. It is a 100-percent problem to you.
  Apart from its failure to mitigate the cost of this mandate for small 
businesses, the Kennedy amendment also fails to address the root of the 
problem for our lowest paid workers. I have touched on that a little 
bit. Congress, by simply imposing an artificial wage increase, will not 
meaningfully address the real issues of our lowest paid workers. 
Regardless of the size of any wage increase Congress might impose, the 
reality is that yesterday's lowest paid worker, assuming he still has a 
job, will continue to be tomorrow's lowest paid worker as well. That is 
not advancement. Advancement on the job and earned wage growth cannot 
be legislated. We do a disservice to all concerned, most especially the 
chronic low wage worker, to suggest that a Federal wage mandate is the 
answer.
  What we need to focus on is not an artificially imposed number but on 
the acquisition and improvement of job and job-related skills. In this 
context, we should recognize that only 68 percent of the students 
entering the ninth grade 4 years ago are expected to graduate this 
year. And for minority students, that hovers right around 50 percent. 
In addition, we continue to experience a dropout rate of 11 percent per 
year. These noncompletions and dropout rates and the poor earnings 
capacities that come with them can't be fixed by a Federal wage policy. 
We have to get the kids to stay in school, to get the education. We 
have to make sure the education is relevant and that when they graduate 
at whatever level, there is a job out there for them and that the job 
is transportable, that they can take their skills other places in the 
country, as those areas open up, with a higher wage for those skills, 
and that they have the knowledge to be able to learn, to continue to 
advance their skills so that when they move, they get more.
  What we want are the best jobs kept in America for the people who 
live in America. That is an opportunity we have but not with an 
artificially mandated minimum wage. I would hope that nobody in the 
United States would work at the minimum wage. I know for a fact that 
most of the people who start at minimum wage, if they pay attention to 
their job, are not in minimum wage very long. If they pick up the 
skills, they get paid for those skills. That is so that they don't go 
somewhere else and work. But if they don't have the skills, they are 
lucky to get a job at all. I have people I have hired before who 
couldn't read. What kind of opportunities do they have if they can't 
read? We have them in literacy programs. We moved them into GED 
programs and trained them in something they could do and be proud of, 
and that is a higher wage.
  We must keep this in mind. The phrase ``minimum wage worker'' is an 
arbitrary designation. A more accurate description and one that should 
always be at the center of the debate is that we are seeking to address 
those workers who have few, if any, skills they need to compete for 
better jobs--that is what we are doing in the United States, 
competing--and then command higher wages. The effect may be low wages, 
but the cause is low skills. In short, the problem is not the minimum 
wage, the problem is minimum skills.
  If we are to approach this debate in a constructive and candid way, 
we need

[[Page 23160]]

to acknowledge certain basic principles of economics. Wages do not 
cause sales. Sales are needed to provide revenue to pay wages. Revenue 
drives wages. Wages can cause productivity, but the productivity has to 
come first to be able to afford the wages. When we raise the minimum 
wage, we are raising the price somehow. The people who get the minimum 
wage have to buy stuff just like everybody else. If the price goes up 
because a phony minimum wage went in, then their buying ability did not 
increase at all. How pleased can you be if you get more money and you 
can't buy anything more? What we are trying to do is set up a system 
where people will make more true wages and, with the true wages, be 
able to purchase more than they could before. Some of that is basic 
need, but we are hoping they all get past the basic need level and can 
get into the wants and desires as well, that they can be part of the 
American dream.
  Skills, however, operate differently than wages. Skills do create 
sales, and sales produce revenue. Skills do create productivity. Skills 
get compensated with higher wages or people find another job. The 
employee simply goes elsewhere for higher wages. Wage increases without 
increased sales or higher productivity have to be paid for with higher 
prices. Higher prices wipe out wage increases. Skills, not artificial 
wage increases, produce true net gains in income for the individual and 
for the business. When it increases for the business, it increases 
their likelihood of keeping their job and getting to advance. The 
minimum wage should be for all workers what it is for most--a starting 
point in an individual's lifelong working career, their lifelong 
learning career. Those who advance in any jobs are the ones who look at 
it and say: How can I do this better? If they come up with a way to do 
it better, they will get more compensation. Their business will make 
more money or they will go start their own business, which is also a 
dream of mine, to get people to do that. I hold an inventors conference 
every year. The purpose of that conference is to get people to invent 
about their surroundings and their jobs and to find some product that 
they can make in Wyoming and ship around the world. I have found that 
anybody who has figured out a way to make a living in Wyoming lives in 
Wyoming. We are a little short on jobs out there. That is why we only 
have 494,612--that is last week's number--living in Wyoming. We hope to 
get past that half-million mark, but it does require jobs. The way to 
get jobs is to have the skills to be able to improve what you do.
  The minimum wage should be for workers what it is for most; that is, 
a starting point in an individual's lifelong working career, their 
lifelong learning time. Viewed as a starting point, it becomes clear 
that the focus needs to be less on where an individual begins his or 
her working career. Instead, more emphasis should be placed on how an 
individual can best progress. Real wage growth happens every day, and 
it is not a function of Government mandate. It is the direct result of 
an individual becoming more skilled and, therefore, more valuable to 
his or her employer. As a former small business owner, I know that 
these entry-level jobs are a gateway into the workforce for people 
without skills or experience. These minimum-skill jobs can open the 
door to better jobs and better lives for low-skilled workers because 
they get more skills if we give them the tools they need to succeed.
  We have a great example in Cheyenne, WY, of minimum-skilled workers 
who were given the tools and the opportunity to reach the American 
dream. Mr. Jack Price, who is the owner of 8 McDonald's in Wyoming--and 
we use McDonald's as kind of a derogatory thing with people as being a 
minimum wage establishment; I assure you that people who start there, 
who learn something, are not at the minimum wage very long--has had 3 
employees who started working at McDonald's at the minimum wage, and 
those 3 employees now own a total of 20 restaurants. They learned 
something. They started at minimum wage. They didn't like it, I am 
sure. They learned. They got experience. They delved into it and found 
out all they could about the business and wound up owning the business. 
That is what we want for people. It requires some individual 
initiative, and it does require starting at the bottom. With almost 
every job, you have to start at the bottom. If you learn it, you can 
progress in it. Three employees at McDonald's who started at the 
minimum wage now own 20 restaurants.
  It is a great success story. That is where I would like people to go. 
This type of wage progression and success should be the norm for 
workers across the country. However, there are some minimum-skilled 
workers for whom stagnation at the lower tier wage is a longer term 
proposition.
  The answer for these workers, however, is not to simply raise the 
lowest wage rung. Rather, these individuals must acquire the training 
and skills that result in meaningful and lasting wage growth. We must 
equip our workers with the skills they need to compete in technology-
driven global economies.
  It is estimated that 60 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require 
skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess. Let me say that 
again. It is estimated that 60 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require 
skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess.
  Here is another interesting point. It is also estimated that the 
graduating student will likely change careers some 14 times in their 
life. There are a lot of people in America whose parents went to work 
for one company, worked there 30 years and retired. I am talking about 
a different world. It is estimated that the graduating students will 
likely change careers some 14 times in their life.
  Here is the part that is even more stunning, and I am not talking 
about changing employers. I am talking about changing careers. Of those 
14 careers, 10 of them have not even been invented yet. We don't even 
know what this change in technology is going to bring about, but we do 
know that people better be able to change to get those jobs, and they 
are going to have to change pretty dramatically. It is going to be 
based on the education they get and then the skills they acquire in the 
workforce after they get out of school. School is never out; learning 
is never over.
  To support these needs, we do need a system in place that can support 
a lifetime of education, a lifetime of training and retraining for our 
workers. The end result will be the attainment of skills that provide 
meaningful wage growth and competition--successful competition--in the 
international marketplace.
  As legislators, our efforts are better focused on ensuring that the 
tools and opportunities for training and enhancing skills over a 
worker's lifetime are available and fully utilized than they are on 
imposing an artificial wage increase that fails to address the real 
issues and, in the process, does more harm than good.
  Skills and experience, not an artificial Federal wage hike, will lead 
to lasting wage security for American workers. We have to compete. It 
is an international competition. Skills count.
  As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
one of my priorities is reauthorizing and improving the Nation's job 
training system that was created by the Workforce Investment Act. This 
law will help provide American workers with the skills they need to 
compete in the global economy. That will lead to real, not artificial, 
wage increases.
  Last year, I was denied a conference committee being appointed to 
resolve the differences with the House on this important bill by the 
very people proposing this increase. This year, we reported it out of 
the HELP Committee by a unanimous voice vote again. It was unanimous 
coming out of committee 2 years ago, it was unanimous passing the floor 
of this body, it was unanimous passing out of committee again this 
year, and it is waiting to come to the floor. I am hoping we can get 
consent to get it over to a conference committee with the House.

[[Page 23161]]

  This bill will start an estimated 900,000 people a year on a better 
career path. You can't tell me that some of the same people who are 
denied the opportunity in the last Congress now think a magic 
redetermination of the lowest wage for the lowest skills will change 
people's lives.
  Outside the glare of election year politics, I hope we can quickly 
pass a job training bill that will truly improve the wages and lives of 
workers in this country.
  Let's be clear about what a minimum wage hike will and will not do. 
First, we must realize that large increases in the minimum wage will 
hurt low-income, low-skilled individuals. Mandated hikes in the minimum 
wage do not cure poverty, and they clearly do not create jobs. The 
Congressional Budget Office has said:

       Most economists would agree that an increase in the minimum 
     wage rate would cause firms to employ fewer low-wage workers 
     or employ them for fewer hours.

  That is a CBO estimate, October 18, 1999.
  What every student who has ever taken an economics course knows is if 
you increase the cost of something--in this case a minimum wage job--
you decrease the demand for those jobs. Misleading political rhetoric 
cannot change the basic principle of supply and demand. The majority of 
economists continue to affirm the job-killing nature of mandated wage 
increases. A recent poll concluded that 77 percent--that is nearly 
17,000 economists; that is scary, isn't it?--but 77 percent, nearly 
17,000 economists believe that a minimum wage hike causes job loss.
  We simply cannot assume that a business that employs 50 minimum wage 
workers before this wage increase is enacted will still employ 50 
minimum wage workers afterwards. Whether a business is in Washington or 
Wyoming, employers cannot absorb an increase in their costs without a 
corresponding decrease in the number of jobs or benefits they can 
provide workers. So we know there are losers when we raise the minimum 
wage, but who are the individuals who will benefit?
  Minimum wage earners who support a family solely based on wage are 
actually few and far between. Fully 85 percent--85 percent--of the 
minimum wage earners live with their parents, have a working spouse or 
are living alone without children--85 percent; 41 percent live with a 
parent or relative; 23 percent are single or are the sole breadwinner 
in a house with no children; and 21 percent live with another wage 
earner.
  Our research shows that poor targeting and other unintended 
consequences of the minimum wage make it terribly ineffective at 
reducing poverty in America, the intended purpose of the policy. In 
fact, two Stanford University economists concluded that a minimum wage 
increase is paid for by higher prices that hurt poor families the most.
  A 2001 study conducted by Stanford University economists found that 
only 1 in 4 of the poorest 20 percent of families would benefit from an 
increase in the minimum wage. The way to improve--truly improve--the 
wages and salaries of these American workers is through education and 
training, not an artificial wage increase.
  With these realities in mind, I am offering an amendment that 
recognizes the true cost of a minimum wage increase on American workers 
and businesses, particularly small businesses. My amendment includes a 
minimum wage increase of $1.10, which is just like Senator Kennedy's 
amendment right now. So we are really not talking about the minimum 
wage amount.
  My amendment addresses other needs for reform and the needs of small 
businesses that create most of the jobs in this country. That is where 
the two amendments differ. I have added some things beyond the $1.10 
minimum wage increase, and that is to smooth out the bump a little bit 
for these small businesses that are creating these jobs, that are 
providing the training, that are helping people get better skills so 
they can get better jobs.
  So my amendment addresses other needs for reform and the needs of 
small businesses that create most of the jobs in this country. 
Therefore, my amendment is protective of economic growth and job 
creation. I think if we had worked this out in committee, probably the 
other side would have accepted what I am about to do in additional 
pieces to this bill, and a lot of this discussion would not have been 
necessary.
  Let me briefly review the provisions contained in my amendment. In 
doing so, we must bear in mind that small businesses continue to be the 
engine of our economy and the greatest single source of job creation. 
Any wage increase that is imposed on small businesses poses 
difficulties for that business, the owner, and his or her employees. I 
will tell you, in small business, the employees recognize how tenuous 
their job is. There are not a whole lot of layers that can be laid off 
before they get to them because there is the owner and a couple of 
employees. And because there are just a few in the business, they know 
how the business operates. They know what the dollars coming in are and 
what the ability is to change that unless they can increase 
productivity or sales.
  Any wage increase that is imposed on small businesses poses 
difficulties for that employer and his or her employees. My amendment 
recognizes that reality and provides a necessary measure of relief for 
those employers. My amendment would make the following changes that are 
critical, particularly for small business.
  First, we would update the small business exemption. Having owned a 
small business in Wyoming, I can speak from personal experience about 
how difficult any minimum wage increase is for small business and job 
growth, particularly for the entry-level people during the first couple 
of months they are on the job.
  Small businesses generate 70 percent of new jobs. Let me say that 
again. Small businesses generate 70 percent of new jobs. Since a 
negative impact of a minimum wage increase will affect small business 
most directly, we have proposed addressing the small business threshold 
which is set under current law at half a million dollars. If the 
original small business threshold, which was enacted in the 1960s, were 
to be adjusted for inflation, it would be over $1.5 million.
  The small business threshold was last updated 15 years ago. In those 
ensuing years, the national minimum wage has been hiked, the economy 
has undergone dramatic shifts, and the way work is done in this country 
has changed forever. The pending amendment raises that threshold to $1 
million to reflect those changes. It ought to be at $1.5 million. That 
is what inflation shows. But we are being reasonable. I like to be 
reasonable on any of the proposals I put forward. So instead of going 
from a half a million dollars to $1.5 million, this bill only raises it 
to $1 million to reflect part of those changes.
  My amendment also incorporates bipartisan technical corrections that 
were originally proposed in 1990 by then-Small Business Committee 
Chairman Dale Bumpers, who used to serve on that side of the aisle when 
I was first here. It was cosponsored over the years by Senators Reid of 
Nevada, Harkin, Pryor, Mikulski, Baucus, Kohl, and many others.
  As those Senators can attest, the Department of Labor disregarded the 
will of Congress and interpreted the existing small business threshold 
to have little or no meaning. The Labor Department would make a Federal 
case out of the most trivial paperwork infraction by the smallest 
businesses because of what it interpreted as a loophole in the law. 
Some would say that the 1989 bill to hike the minimum wage and small 
business threshold was unartfully drafted and permitted this result. 
Others say the Department is misreading the clear language of the 
statute.
  Regardless, the fact is that a threshold enacted by Congress is not 
providing the balance and fairness that was intended. This amendment 
corrects that problem by stating clearly that the wage and overtime 
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to employees working 
for enterprises engaged in commerce or engaged in the production of 
goods for commerce. My amendment also applies those wage-

[[Page 23162]]

and-hour worker safeguards to home work solutions.
  The second change: ensuring procedural fairness for small business. 
This next provision is commonsense, good Government legislation. 
Surely, we can all agree that small business owners, the individuals 
who do the most to drive our economy forward, deserve a break the first 
time they make an honest paperwork mistake when no one is hurt and the 
mistake is corrected.
  Small business owners have told me over and over how hard they try to 
comply with all the rules and regulations imposed on them, mostly by 
the Federal Government. As a former owner of a small business myself, I 
know what they mean. Yet for all that work, a Government inspector can 
fine a small business owner for paperwork violations alone, even if the 
business has a completely spotless record and the employer immediately 
corrects the unintentional mistake. Who is hurt? Nobody is hurt, but it 
is an extra burden on small business.
  I have to tell you a little bit about small business. They don't have 
a lot of employees. They don't have any specialists out there. Big 
business can hire people to take a look at the paperwork, and small 
business has to stay as lean and mean as they can to make a profit. 
Look at the difference between profits in your small businesses and 
your big businesses, and you will see they are staying pretty lean and 
mean.
  I remember the first hearing I held in Wyoming after I became a 
Senator was on small business issues.
  One has to remember, Wyoming has kind of a small population. So I was 
thrilled when people from about 100 businesses showed up for this 
hearing.
  Afterwards, one of the reporters came up to me and said: Were you not 
kind of disappointed in the turnout?
  I said, no, I was not disappointed in the turnout. These are small 
businesses we are talking about, and if they had an extra person to 
spend half a day at a hearing, they would fire them, as they have, to 
stay mean and lean, to stay in business.
  So there is a whole world of difference in trying to meet some of the 
Federal paperwork mandates that are fineable. They are hard enough to 
learn about, so the first mistake that does not affect anybody and is 
corrected immediately ought not to be a fine. Even the best intentioned 
employer can get caught in the myriad of burdensome paperwork 
requirements imposed on them by the Federal Government.
  The owners of small businesses are not asking to be excused from the 
obligations or regulations, but they do believe they deserve a break if 
they have previously complied perfectly with the law.
  As Jack Gold, the owner of a small family business in New Jersey, 
told Congress a few years ago at one of our hearings:

       No matter how hard you try to make your business safe for 
     your employees, customers, neighbors and family members, in 
     the end, if a government inspector wants to get you, they can 
     get you. The government cannot tell me that they care more 
     for my family's safety and my company's reputation than I do.

  When one has a small business, the people who work there are part of 
a family. Small business men and women who are first-time violators of 
paperwork regulations deserve our protection.
  The third change: Providing regulatory relief for small businesses. 
As any increase in the minimum wage places burdens on small employers, 
it is only fair that we simultaneously address the ongoing problem of 
agencies not fully complying with congressional directives contained 
within the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
  I will say that again: The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act. The titles are long to read, let alone the bills that go 
with them.
  Under the law, agencies are required to publish small entity 
compliance guides for those rules that require a regulatory flexibility 
analysis. Unfortunately, agencies have either ignored this requirement, 
or when they tried to comply have not done so fully or carefully. Now, 
the previous issue I talked about was small businesses having a little 
imperfection in a regulation for the first time and correcting it 
immediately. Now we are talking about the Federal Government having 
problems and ignoring requirements.
  We do not have a penalty for that, but it is something to which the 
Federal agencies have to pay attention, and my amendment does this by 
including specific provisions that the Government Accounting Office has 
suggested to improve the clarity of the requirements. People ought to 
be able to read the rules and know what they say without having to hire 
a specialist or a lawyer.
  The fourth change: Removing the barriers to a flexible time 
arrangement. My amendment includes legislation that could have a 
monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men, women, and 
families in America. This legislation could give employees greater 
flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family. 
The demand for family time is evident.
  Let me give some of the latest statistics. Seventy percent of 
employees do not think there is a healthy balance between their work 
and their personal life. Seventy percent of the employees say that 
family is their most important priority.
  The family time provision in my amendment addresses these concerns 
head on. It gives employees the option of flexing their schedules over 
a 2-week period. In other words, employees would have 10 flexible hours 
they could work in 1 week in order to take 10 hours off in the next 
week.
  We are not shifting pay periods or anything. We are making 
arrangements that if the employer and the employee agree, there can be 
a shift in their work schedule. Here is a really important part. 
Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal 
Government for over two decades. We are not asking for anything that 
the Federal Government does not already allow for Federal employees.
  I have to say, one of the problems and one of the reasons this came 
to my attention is that Cheyenne, WY--that is our biggest city in 
Wyoming--has a little over 53,000 people. That is the capital. We have 
a lot of Government workers there because it is the capital. The 
Government workers are allowed to take flextime.
  The private businesses that are there are not allowed to give 
flextime. So we have one spouse who works for the Government who can 
shift their schedule around to take an afternoon off to go watch their 
child play soccer in another town--and we have to drive some long 
distances in Wyoming to get to the other towns to watch the soccer 
games--but the other parent cannot because the other parent is working 
for a private company.
  Why would we discriminate that way? Why would we allow Government 
workers to do some things that the private ones cannot do under the 
same law?
  Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal 
Government for over two decades. This program has been so successful 
that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive order extending it 
to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet had the benefits of 
the program. President Clinton then stated:

       The broad use of flexible arrangements to enable Federal 
     employees to better balance their work and family 
     responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job 
     satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.

  Now, why would we not want that to be in the private sector, too? I 
mean, the private sector ought to have broad use of flexible 
arrangements to enable their employees to better balance their work and 
family responsibilities, which would increase employee effectiveness 
and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.
  That sounds reasonable to me, that what we said the Government could 
benefit from that the private sector could benefit from, too. Why are 
we not allowing the private sector to do that?
  I could not agree more with President Clinton, but we now need to go 
further and extend this privilege to private-sector workers. We know 
this legislation is not a total solution. We know there are many other 
provisions

[[Page 23163]]

under the 65-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act that need our attention, 
but the flexible time provision is an important part of the solution. 
It gives employees a choice, the same choice as Federal workers.
  I want to give a little bit of a summary on that flextime proposal 
because this is a key part of it. I have heard some flak before and, 
again, I think if we were debating this in the committee situation and 
working it out when we were not in front of the TV cameras that we 
would probably come up with this as a reasonable solution. It would be 
included in a bill, and we would probably pass it through by unanimous 
consent. But it gets mixed in with the minimum wage debate, and needs 
to be, so I want to make sure people understand this.
  The flextime proposal would provide employees with the option of 
choosing time paid off for working overtime hours through a voluntary 
agreement with their employer. It will do this by allowing them the 
option of flexing their schedule over a 2-week period. In other words, 
employees would have up to 10 flexible hours they could work in 1 week 
in order to take paid time off during the following week.
  I do not want anybody confusing this with a comp time provision that 
was put in before. This does not include the comp time provision. So 
any accusations that this is taking overtime away from anybody, I would 
contend, even under the comp time solution is not valid. Under a 
flextime proposal, it is not valid. Again, it is the same thing that we 
decided that Federal employees could have, and if we would put any 
extra strain on a Federal employee I am sure that would be illegal 
under wage and labor laws. So what we are proposing is the same thing 
as Federal workers.
  Now, as I mentioned, this provision will allow them the option of 
flexing their schedules over a 2-week period, give them up to 10 
flexible hours they could work in 1 week in order to take paid time off 
during the following week. This program would be strictly voluntary. No 
employer and no employee can be forced to enter into a flextime 
agreement. However, this legislation prohibits intimidation, threats, 
and coercion by the employers and would provide penalties for 
violations of the prohibition. The flextime legislation will not take 
away anyone's right to overtime pay.
  The authority to allow employees flextime also sunsets 5 years after 
enactment of the bill. I am that confident that it will be proven to be 
a necessity for the employees, so much so that in all 50 States they 
will be demanding that their Senator keep flextime for them. The only 
reason it is not being demanded in all 50 States at the present time is 
because there are a bunch of employees who have not heard about it. 
Employees in Government areas such as Cheyenne, WY, have heard about it 
because, as I mentioned, one spouse has the right because they work for 
the Government. The other spouse does not have the right because they 
work for private business.
  I have to say, both of those spouses are really upset that we have 
not changed the law. We need to do that.
  Sometimes there is some criticism of this so I have to repeat again 
the flextime proposal does not affect the sanctity of the 40-hour week. 
The 40-hour week remains the law. Under the flextime proposal an 
employee would earn overtime in the very same way he or she currently 
does, by working more than 40 hours in the same 7-day period. This 
proposal does not impact any worker who prefers to receive monetary 
overtime compensation. It will not require employees to take 
compensatory time--I should say flextime. I do not even want that word 
``compensatory'' in there because I do not want any confusion, as has 
been stated previously. Previously, we have offered flextime and comp 
time. This is a flextime proposal.
  It will not require employees to take flextime, nor will it require 
employers to offer it. The bill contains numerous safeguards to protect 
the employee and to ensure the choice and selection of flextime. It is 
truly voluntary on the part of the employee.
  The proposal does not prevent an employee from changing his or her 
mind after he or she chooses time off in lieu of monetary compensation. 
An employee can choose at any time to cash out any and all time off. 
The employer must make the payoff.
  The fifth change I am making: extending the restaurant employee tip 
credit. A major employer of entry-level workers is the food service 
industry. The industry relies on what is known as the tip credit, which 
allows an employer to apply a portion of the employee's tip income 
against the employer's obligation to pay the minimum wage.
  Currently, the Federal law requires a cash wage of at least $2.13 an 
hour for tipped employees, and it allows an employer to take a tip 
credit of up to $3.02 of the current minimum wage. To protect tipped 
employees, current law provides that a tip credit cannot reduce an 
employee's wages below the required minimum wage. Employees report tips 
to the employers, ensuring that an adequate amount of tips are earned.
  The facts are that seven States--Alaska, California, Minnesota, 
Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington--do not allow a tip credit, 
however, requiring raises for an hourly employee when States increase 
their minimum wage. The lack of a tip credit requires these employers 
to give raises to their most highly compensated employees, the tipped 
staff, under State minimum wage laws. Non-tipped employees in these 
States, in these businesses, are negatively impacted by the mandated 
flow of scarce labor dollars to the tipped positions. In addition, 
employers in these States are put at a competitive disadvantage with 
their colleagues in the rest of the country who can allocate employee 
compensation in a more equitable manner.
  My amendment expands the tip credit to non-tip credit States, 
consistent with the initial establishment of the credit under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act.
  I can probably give a little better and more detailed explanation. 
What is the tip credit? The tip credit allows an employer to apply a 
portion of an employee's tip income against the employer's obligation 
to pay the minimum wage. Federal law requires a cash wage of at least 
$2.13 an hour, and it allows an employer to take a tip credit of up to 
$3.02 of the current minimum wage.
  Seven States do not allow a tip credit, instead requiring the tipped 
employees receive the same minimum wage as other employees. Non-tipped 
employees are negatively impacted by the flow of scarce labor dollars. 
This amendment expands the tip credit to non-tip credit States, 
consistent with the initial establishment of the credit under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. Therefore, States which do not currently recognize 
the tip credit will be allowed to take a credit for tips of up to $3.02 
of the minimum wage, which will be $6.25. For other current law, this 
calculation will be based on employees' own reporting of tips to their 
employers.
  There is a false accusation out there, and it happened in previous 
debates. The Democrats misconstrued the effect of this change and 
alleged it would nullify all State wage-and-hour statutes in States 
that do not have a tip credit. This was never the intent of the 
provision, and additional language has been added to clarify that only 
affects the minimum wage rate provisions. Furthermore, the provision 
will only affect States that currently lack a tip credit. So we have 
added language to clarify it so it is only the minimum wage rate 
provisions. That is a very important part of that.
  The sixth provision is a small business tax relief. I apologize for 
having to explain all of these on the floor. Again, this would be much 
better as committee work, but that has not been the opportunity.
  If we are to impose greater burdens on small businesses, we should 
give them tax relief at the same time. My amendment would extend small 
business expensing, simplify the cash accounting methods, and provide 
depreciation relief for restaurants. All these tax provisions are fully 
offset; they are paid for. But they, again, smooth the bumps on those 
businesses that will be most impacted by an increase in the

[[Page 23164]]

minimum wage, which gives them a way to be able to pay the increase in 
the minimum wage. Remember, that has to be paid for, too. Otherwise it 
drives them out of business, which means fewer jobs or it requires them 
to reduce other benefits, and often there are not other benefits.
  In total, the additional provisions of my amendment are intended to 
mitigate the small business impact of a $1.10 increase in the minimum 
wage. I share the view of my colleagues, if we are going to impose such 
a mandate on the Federal level, we must do our best to soften its blow. 
This may be the best we can do today, but I entreat all of my 
colleagues to look at the true root of the problem for minimum wage 
workers, and that is minimum skills. We all share the same goals, to 
help American workers find and keep well-paying jobs. Minimum skills, 
not minimum wages, are the problem. Education and training will solve 
that problem and lead to the kind of increased wages and better jobs we 
all want to create for our Nation's workers.
  Let's work together to get the Workforce Investment Act passed and 
conferenced--conferenced this time--so the President can sign it and 
get higher skills training accelerated.
  Let me run through quickly what those six proposals are: raise the 
minimum wage by $1.10 over 18 months--we agree on that; permit family 
flextime for workers so that workers in private business have the same 
opportunity as workers in the public sector; increase the small 
business exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act so that the small 
business level changes from $500,000 to $1 million; the small business 
one-time paperwork errors relief, when it is for the first time and 
corrected immediately; the small business regulatory relief actually 
being operated to protect small businesses; the minimum wage tip credit 
for restaurant workers; and then some other small business tax relief 
mainly aimed at those businesses that will be most affected by what we 
are doing.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy and urge all Senators to support my amendment so we get the 
whole process taken care of. Again, I thank my colleagues for their 
patience. I needed to explain this in some detail since it has not been 
handled in committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 2077

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside and further ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2077, pending at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, 
     Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
     Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Baucus, 
     Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
     Salazar, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
     Corzine, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Dodd proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2077.

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

(Purpose: To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy 
                          Assistance Program)

       At the end of title VI, insert the following:

                Administration for Children and Families


                   Low Income Home Energy Assistance

       For making payments under title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), 
     $3,100,000,000, for the unanticipated home energy assistance 
     needs of 1 or more States, as authorized by section 2604(e) 
     of the Act (42 U.S.C. 8623(e)), which amount shall be made 
     available for obligation in fiscal year 2006 and which amount 
     is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

  Mr. REED. I also ask unanimous consent Senator Dodd be added as a 
cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of 
Florida be added as an original cosponsor of amendment No. 2113.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, the topic of this amendment is increasing 
the funds available for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP. We are about to see a second tidal surge from Katrina and Rita; 
it is not rising waters, it is rising energy prices, and those rising 
prices are going to break with ferocity on people all over this 
country, particularly those individuals who live in States that are 
going to see a cold winter, which is beginning shortly. Low-income 
Americans are going to be faced with extraordinary challenges in 
meeting their energy bills this winter.
  We have already seen huge increases in prices of heating oil, natural 
gas, and propane. We understand, without some further assistance, we 
will be in a very precarious position, and these families will be in a 
distressed position. I particularly thank Senator Collins, Senator 
Snowe, Senator Coleman, and Senator Smith for their bipartisan 
leadership on this amendment--particularly Senator Collins--for joining 
me in this effort. She has been a stalwart over several Congresses with 
respect to supporting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  We are reaching across the aisle and across the country to provide 
more assistance to the LIHEAP program. We offer this amendment with 30 
cosponsors. It is bipartisan, stretching across the length and breadth 
of this country. It seeks to add $3.1 billion to the HUD appropriations 
bill in emergency energy assistance.
  Energy costs for the average family using heating oil are estimated 
to hit $1,577 this winter, an increase of $378 over last winter's 
heating season. For families using natural gas, prices could hit $1,099 
this winter heating season, an increase of $354. Families using propane 
can see heating costs on average this heating season to be 
approximately $1,400. That is another increase of $300. For families 
living in poverty, energy bills now are approximately 20 percent of 
their income compared to 5 percent for other households. Unless we take 
action now, we are going to see families in this country, low-income 
working families, families struggling with the issue of poverty, 
seniors who are living on fixed incomes being devastated.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. I would state Senator Baucus has a unanimous consent 
request and would like to make a few remarks prior to that. Will the 
Senator yield to Senator Baucus?
  Mr. REED. I am prepared to yield. My colleague from Maine is here to 
speak.
  Mr. REID. I ask you to yield to your colleague from Montana first.
  Mr. REED. If I could do so and then, with the order being that at the 
conclusion of Senator Baucus, Senator Collins be recognized to speak.
  Mr. REID. We, of course, have no objection if you get the floor 
following Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Let me make sure I understand this.
  Mr. REID. I asked the Senator from Rhode Island to yield to the 
Senator from Montana. He has a brief statement and unanimous consent 
request he is going to make. Then I have no problem.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming the floor, I ask how long the Senator from 
Montana might speak?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I expect maybe 4 or 5 or 6 minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the Senator from Rhode Island and I 
have been waiting for some time to give our comments. I expect that my 
comments are only going to be 5 minutes.

[[Page 23165]]


  Mr. REID. We will be happy to wait until the Senator from Rhode 
Island and the Senator from Maine finish their statements.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I think probably the most efficient way to 
do this is let me yield the floor to the Senator from Maine. When she 
concludes, I ask the Senator from Montana be recognized. At the 
conclusion of the comments of the Senator from Montana, if I can be 
recognized again, I will finish my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, let me thank my colleague and 
friend from Rhode Island for accommodating my schedule and for his 
usual graciousness. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on an 
initiative that is so important to low-income families in our country 
and that is increasing the funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program. We are proposing to increase the funding to the 
amount authorized by the energy legislation that was signed into law a 
couple of months ago, so we are proposing to bring it to the fully 
authorized level of $5.1 billion.
  Madam President, I am sure it is very similar in your State. When I 
go home to Maine, as I do every weekend, the No. 1 issue that people 
talk to me about is the high cost of energy. They have expressed over 
and over their fear that they simply will not be able to afford the 
cost of heating oil for their homes this winter. The cost increases 
have been enormous. They are, in part, attributable to the two 
hurricanes that we have endured, and that is why I view this as part of 
the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina and Rita.
  Right now in Maine, we have already had some nights that have plunged 
below freezing. In Maine, 78 percent of all households use home heating 
oil to heat their homes. Currently, the cost of home heating oil is 
more than $2.50 per gallon. I actually paid $2.72 per gallon recently. 
That is a considerable increase, 60 cents or more a gallon, over last 
year's already high prices.
  These high prices greatly increase the need for assistance. More low-
income families are going to be in dire straits. Moreover, as it 
increases, it has an impact on the amount of money that can be given 
out, so we have a pot of money that is going to have to be spread over 
a larger population at a time when prices are soaring.
  Last year, there was an average benefit in Maine of $480. This year 
it is expected that the benefit would have to be cut to $440. That 
would purchase only 173 gallons of oil, far below last year's 
equivalent benefit of 251 gallons, and not nearly enough, of course, to 
go through a Maine winter. To purchase the same amount of oil this year 
as last, Maine would need an additional $10.8 million in LIHEAP funds.
  This really is a choice, for many low-income families in our country, 
of buying the home heating oil or natural gas that they need to keep 
warm or putting adequate food on the table or buying much-needed 
prescription drugs. Surely, in a country as prosperous as ours, no low-
income family should be forced to make those kinds of choices.
  I urge support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode 
Island and myself, and again I thank the Senator for his courtesy in 
yielding to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.


                   unanimous-consent request--s. 1716

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it has been more than 7 weeks since 
Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast--7 weeks. Nearly 1.5 million 
Americans have been displaced. Tens of thousands of these survivors 
have no health care coverage and no money to pay for care. It is high 
time for passage of the Grassley-Baucus Emergency Health Care Relief 
Act, S. 1716.
  On Monday, the Los Angeles Times ran a story on a 52-year-old 
schoolbus driver from New Orleans, Emanuel Wilson. Mr. Wilson survived 
Katrina, but his life is still at risk. Why? Because he has intestinal 
cancer and he has no health insurance.
  Mr. Wilson was getting monthly chemotherapy injections before the 
storm, but now he cannot get any health care.
  He lost his job and his health coverage because of Katrina, and he is 
ineligible to receive Medicaid.
  According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, more than half of all 
hurricane evacuees still in Louisiana who sought Medicaid coverage 
since Katrina have been turned away. More than half were turned away. 
These are poor people. They aren't people with a lot of money. They are 
poor people. They can't get coverage because they do not meet the rigid 
eligibility guidelines under Federal Medicaid law.
  We need to relax those guidelines on a temporary basis, on an 
emergency basis, to help those survivors desperately in need.
  This morning, my staff met with Secretary Cerise, secretary of 
Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals. And Dr. Cerise reported 
that Louisiana's Medicaid Program has enrolled 60,000 new individuals 
because of Katrina, which would cost the State about $83 million if 
they were to pay for the care.
  Louisiana has just lost about one-seventh of its total expected State 
revenue this year, and they cannot bear these additional costs. They 
are likely to need to make dramatic cuts to the Medicaid Program if 
they don't get help soon.
  Dr. Cerise reports that Louisiana will have to cut all optional 
services to beneficiaries if they do not get help.
  What does that mean? That means ending their hospice programs, ending 
their pharmacy benefits, ending their institutional care for the 
mentally retarded, ending their dialysis and other benefits, cutting 
off care for their medically needy, breast and cervical cancer 
patients, as well as thousands of low-income children.
  We have spent far too long talking about this bill. Far too many 
times have we been asking unanimous consent to get this bill passed--
far too long. These are temporary provisions.
  America can do better. America can help its people in need in times 
of emergency.
  Where is America? Where is the Senate?
  My colleagues, Senator Grassley, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lincoln, 
and Senator Reid have all spoken passionately supporting moving this 
bill forward and moving it forward immediately.
  I hope we can get this bill passed and enacted into law without 
delay. We owe at least this much to our fellow Americans hit by Katrina 
and its aftermath.
  It ties in very much with the latest dialog on the floor with the 
Senator from Rhode Island about the need for LIHEAP money. Energy costs 
are going up around the country. They are going up so quickly, so high, 
and it is the kind of problem facing the people down on the gulf coast.
  I urgently ask our colleagues to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 214, S. 1716, a bill to provide emergency health care 
relief for survivors of Hurricane Katrina; that the bill be read a 
third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, if I might reserve the right to object, 
we had this conversation on the floor before. The bill has been brought 
to the floor, and attempts have been made to pass it by unanimous 
consent.
  This bill includes provisions that change the reimbursement rates 
under Medicaid for 29 States, regardless of how many evacuees they 
might have in that State, regardless of whether they were affected by 
Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. It is completely inappropriate to 
try to make adjustments in Medicaid under the umbrella or the cover of 
hurricane relief.
  There are legitimate questions about whether and how we can provide 
assistance to those under Medicaid affected by Hurricane Katrina or 
Hurricane Rita.
  Eight States have already been granted waivers to modify eligibility 
to help provide that coverage. But in an effort to deal with some of 
the concerns I have--and other Senators have concerns about this bill--
this $9 billion

[[Page 23166]]

bill to support a statute that gives the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services the power to change reimbursement rates to compensate States 
for additional costs incurred under Medicaid as a result of the 
hurricane, we would put into law the uncompensated care pool that is 
part of this legislation to help deal with some of the costs outside of 
Medicaid. We have even proposed providing some support and assistance 
to community health centers, something that is not even in this 
legislation--community health centers being so critical to providing 
assistance not just to Medicaid beneficiaries but to those who are 
underinsured or those who are without any health insurance for whatever 
reason. I think these are very reasonable proposals.
  I think this is a good-faith effort to address some of the concerns 
that have been presented, but even in the absence of legislation 
through the State waiver process, through the efforts of Secretary 
Leavitt of Health and Human Services, I think every good-faith effort 
is being made to provide assistance, to provide coverage to those in 
need.
  Given that fact, I will object at this time to the unanimous-consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, with all due respect, we have heard 
these lamentations before. We have heard it all, with due respect, 
before.
  Let me just clear the record a little bit. The Senator mentioned 
waivers. The Secretary has admitted that he does not have authority 
under the waiver system to do what needs to be done. He does not have 
authority to make these hospitals--not whole but to get some 
uncompensated care for these hospitals. He does not have authority to 
do so. He does not have authority to make other provisions that are 
necessary in this bill.
  I must say this is a temporary bill. It is only on an emergency 
basis.
  I am willing to--and I think a lot of my colleagues are willing and 
concerned about the costs--take it out of the unspent FEMA money. We 
appropriated in this body about $60 billion for FEMA. I understand that 
maybe roughly $40 billion of that has not been spent.
  If the Senator is concerned about the costs, we could take it out of 
FEMA and help people who really need help. The Secretary does not have 
the authority to do what needs to be done. And, second, the 
administration has not come up with any real plan to say where the 
money is going to come from. It is all just talk, words.
  If the Senator from New Hampshire is willing to take the money out of 
FEMA, or if he is willing to say trim back a little bit to come up with 
a deal with 29 States to immediately pass a bill that may be trimmed 
down a little bit and paid for out of FEMA, then we would be doing the 
country a great deal of service.
  But to stand here day in and day out for 27 weeks, for a Senator to 
stand on the floor and say we can't help people in Louisiana and the 
Gulf States, we could sure help New Yorkers after 9/11. We can help 
them, but we can't help the people on the gulf coast.
  These are the same Medicaid provisions that we gave the people in New 
York City as a consequence of 9/11--the same eligibility standards, the 
same.
  In other words, let us do it for the gulf coast people, if we can do 
it for New Yorkers. It is great for New Yorkers. We are all for it. Let 
us figure out a way to help the people in the Gulf States--help them a 
little bit. This administration does not want to do so, and the other 
side doesn't want to do so. I cannot believe it when the big rush right 
now is to cut Medicaid--cut Medicaid, cut Medicaid. We want to help the 
people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would love to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Montana will yield for a question, I 
would like to ask him about New York City. Isn't it a fact that after 
the 9/11 disaster, within 2 weeks we expanded Medicaid coverage under a 
disaster relief Medicaid assistance program so that 340,000 New Yorkers 
were able to start receiving Medicaid for 4 months? We spent $670 
million on that assistance. We did that within 2 weeks. And now 7 weeks 
have passed, and this administration has not come forward with any help 
for Hurricane Katrina victims when it comes to Medicaid.
  Mr. BAUCUS. In answer to the question of my colleague, it is 
absolutely true. We came to the aid of people who needed aid in New 
York within a couple of weeks. That was the right thing to do. We are a 
passionate people, a country willing to help people in need, 
particularly when it is an emergency need.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, this is 
a bipartisan amendment which the Senator just offered, along with 
Senator Grassley, Republican of Iowa, Senator Baucus, of course, of 
Montana, and many other colleagues to come forward to try to help the 
victims of this hurricane. Have we turned the page now? Are we not 
thinking about what happened down there? I hope we haven't.
  Let me ask the Senator from Montana, is it a fact, No. 1, that the 
relief that he is proposing is temporary and short term? It is 5 months 
of Medicaid relief for these people who are in the worst circumstances. 
And, second, it would help States like mine and many others that have 
brought in evacuees. In our case, we brought 5,000 evacuees into our 
State to help them out. We have incurred more expenses in Medicaid 
expenditures to help these families so that these caring people in 
States around the gulf coast area who are really trying to help will 
not be ignored by the Federal Government.
  Is that the intent of the amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. That is the intent of the 
amendment. I thank the Senator for raising that point.
  This is not a partisan effort at all. This is just a compassionate 
effort on the part of both Republicans and Democrats. I might say that 
all Senators--Republicans and Democrats--in the States affected would 
like to see this bill passed. All the Governors in the States 
affected--Republicans and Democrats--would like to see this bill 
passed. The House delegations from the States affected would like to 
see this bill passed. It is very much bipartisan.
  The second point the Senator made is a very good one. A lot of 
evacuees have gone to a lot of States across the country--many in 
Illinois. Some have come to my State in Montana from New Orleans. We 
are very gracious and want to do all we can to help the people who are 
so dislocated.
  If we stop and think for a moment, the Senators lead pretty 
comfortable lives. For these people, it is incredible hardships they 
are going through. We forget all they have to go through. They don't 
have houses, anyplace to live, no way to pay bills, no job, their kids 
are out of school, or where they can go to school, health care needs--
they are incredibly affected.
  I do not know how many Members have gone down to the gulf coast. 
Raise your hand if you have gone down to the gulf coast and have seen 
it all. There are two. We have seen it. It is Biblical. There is not a 
word for it. It is a tragedy that is affecting people on the gulf 
coast. It is Biblical. My Lord, my God, why can't the Senate do 
something about it?
  Why are we here, Senators? To say no? That is not why we are here. We 
are here to do the right thing. We are not asking for the Moon. We are 
just asking for a little bit of help.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask one more question, so those who are 
following this debate understand, the Senator asked unanimous consent 
to go to this temporary measure--a 5-month measure, a bipartisan 
measure--to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and because one 
Senator from one State on the other side of the aisle objected, we 
cannot move to consider this issue at this time. Is that true?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. That is the situation we are in.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a 
question, I think I heard those who object to the unanimous consent 
request of the Senator from Montana suggest that somehow he is trying 
to solve a problem

[[Page 23167]]

that doesn't exist; that this can be handled in other ways. Could the 
Senator from Montana describe to me the circumstances of people who are 
affected? If this legislation is not made available on an emergency 
basis in human terms, isn't it a fact that we have people, particularly 
low-income people, who have lost everything?
  Incidentally, I went to the Armory here in Washington DC and talked 
to those folks who have come here, left home with nothing to escape the 
ravages of the flood waters and are there with their children and the 
clothes on their back and nothing else.
  What are the real consequences for people who are in that situation 
if the Senator's legislation is not adopted? We did this for 9/11 
victims. We did it for a good reason, I assume. If we don't do it here, 
and now weeks have marched by with no action, what are the human 
consequences of our deciding not to do this?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the Senator's question. People are not going 
to get health care. The diabetics will be scrambling wondering where 
they are going to get their insulin shots. People getting chemotherapy 
will be wondering where in the world they are going to get their 
chemotherapy. For mentally affected people, where are they going to get 
their assistance? Particularly those who have lost their jobs and don't 
have any insurance anymore, where are they going to get their 
insurance? If they lost their jobs and they do not have money to even 
pay for basics, let alone health care, how are they going to pay for 
food? Where are they going to live? It is incredible.
  I wish all Members in this Senate would go to the gulf coast and walk 
around New Orleans, walk around the gulf coast of Mississippi, and 
feel, see, smell, taste how devastating this tragedy is. We would be 
rushing to pass this legislation if Senators would go down there to see 
what is going on.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask an additional question, this is about 
health care. Health care is not a luxury. When you or your kids are 
sick, particularly in the circumstances where you have been the victim 
of a significant disaster, you have been displaced and lost everything, 
health care ought not be a function of whether you have money in your 
billfold.
  I ask the Senator from Montana, is it the case that your legislation 
will not break the bank? You have suggested other ways to pay for it. 
It is bipartisan. You are coming to talk about something that is an 
essential for people. This is not some luxury. We are talking about 
health care. When we talk about the five most important things for 
people here, there, or wherever, health care is right near the top. If 
you do not have health care, if you do not have your health, you do not 
have much.
  The Senator from Montana has been here a number of times. My hope 
would be that our colleagues would not object and that the Grassley-
Baucus proposal would be accepted and we would move on. This ought not 
be a point of contention at all. This ought to be easy for this 
Congress.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might also add, the primary sponsor of 
this legislation is the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Senator 
Chuck Grassley from Iowa. Senator Grassley is known in this Senate, 
probably more than any Member for doing the right thing. He is not a 
partisan. He is not political. He does what he thinks is right. It is 
clear to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance that this is 
right. I join with him to do something that is right.
  We have talked this out with all members of the committee, both 
sides, how to tailor this, modify it, make it work or not work, and I 
am quite confidence it would be agreed to unanimously by all members of 
the committee.
  I mentioned the States affected. The Senators of the States affected 
all want this. The Governors all want this--and there are more 
Republican than Democrat. And the mayors want it because they know it 
is the right thing to do.
  Again I make the request.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
apologize for taking additional time, I know Senator Reed is due to be 
recognized by consent as soon as this lengthy and, in my opinion, 
unnecessary discussion is complete. It is important to note this bill 
does not take the funding out of FEMA as has been represented. We 
suggested that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator is willing to take it out of FEMA, we are 
willing to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SUNUNU. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized under the previous 
agreement.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I will continue my remarks about the 
LIHEAP program. I certainly salute the Senator from Montana for his 
passion, his eloquence, and his sense of decency. We should be moving 
on this legislation. It is a bipartisan effort, just as this LIHEAP 
legislation is a bipartisan effort. They are both linked by the 
devastation in the gulf. So many families have been displaced from 
their homes, their homes destroyed. They are looking for health care. 
Other families in the Northeast, in the Midwest, in the Far West, and 
in the Mountain States where this winter will be cold and difficult to 
bear will also see the effects of Katrina. They have seen them already 
in rising energy prices.
  As I indicated in my prior remarks, this is the second wave, the 
second surge. The first was waters through the gulf. The second is 
increased energy prices for the rest of the country.
  No family should be forced to make choices between heating or eating. 
That is precisely what many families will be faced with this winter 
unless we adopt this proposal and increase LIHEAP funding by $3.1 
billion.
  The RAND Corporation found in a study that low-income households 
reduced food expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increases 
in fuel expenditures. They cut back on food to pay for heat. That is 
not something any American wants to see or wants us to tolerate.
  It is particularly difficult for seniors. Recently, I visited the 
home of Mr. Ohanian in Cranston, RI. Mr. Ohanian is an 88-year-old 
veteran of our military service. He served this country. Now he lives 
on a Social Security check of $779 a month. One does not have to have 
advanced training in economics to figure out that with these energy 
prices this year in the Northeast--Senator Collins indicated she was 
paying $2.70 a gallon for heating oil--that adds up quite quickly, and 
it wipes out a monthly income of $779. As a result, Mr. Ohanian has to 
go to his daughter's house sometimes for food, goes to soup kitchens to 
get help. He deserves it. He served this country in a most difficult 
time, in uniform. What we have is a situation where last year Mr. 
Ohanian received $600 in LIHEAP payments. It helped. It did not pay for 
all the fuel costs, but it helped. Unless we put this money in, his 
costs will be way out of proportion to what he can bear.
  Recently, the Social Security COLA was announced. It is $65 a month. 
Any increase is appreciated, but that is already wiped out more or less 
by increased contributions to health care programs that are required. 
When you put on top of that for a senior this huge spike in energy 
prices--be it natural gas, heating oil, or propane--they are losing 
ground rapidly, unless, of course, we act to at least bring them up to 
the level of last year's program.
  We need to fully fund the LIHEAP program at the $5.1 billion 
authorized in the Energy bill. This amendment would do that. It would 
add $3.1 billion in emergency spending to the $2 billion the President 
has requested. That is roughly what we had last year, just a little bit 
below. Do the math. If we have just $2 billion and we have increased 
energy prices--just take heating oil. Last year, heating oil was 
roughly $1.92. Expensive? Yes. Now it is $2.70. The same amount of 
monthly income, huge increases in energy costs. How can we provide that 
assistance we provided just last year?

[[Page 23168]]

  As Senator Collins indicated, look at the poverty numbers. Poverty 
has increased every year for the last several years. There are more 
people qualified for this program. This is an anticipated disaster--in 
some respects, the same way Katrina was anticipated.
  I hope we can learn from Katrina, not just sit back and watch idly, 
watch the impact, watch poor people suffer. Not just poor people who 
were caught up in the tumult and terror of New Orleans--but poor people 
in Portland, ME; New Haven, CT; in Cleveland, OH; in Seattle, WA; in 
Butte, MT. I expect it gets cold out there in the winter. They will be 
caught up.
  I thought after Katrina we had a coming together, led by the 
President, to recognize we are failing people who are poor, that we are 
not doing what we have to do to keep faith with them. I can remember 
his words at the Washington National Cathedral. Have those words 
evaporated already? Are those words not operative now? I hope they are. 
I hope we take them to heart. If we do, we will pass this amendment, 
and we will pass the legislation of Senator Baucus and Senator 
Grassley. That is what I thought the President was telling us to do at 
the Cathedral speech.
  Now, even if we do have funding of an additional $3.1 billion, we are 
still only serving about one-seventh of the 35 million households poor 
enough to qualify for assistance. So we are not talking about a program 
that has so much money that they do not know what to do with it. What 
they have is so many customers and clients that they do not know what 
to do with them. And what happens, is these people will apply to the 
community action agencies across the country, and they will be put on 
waiting lists. They will try to help some. We can do much better. I 
hope we can start by passing this legislation.
  We also need Presidential leadership. What has happened from the 
speech on the pulpit of the National Cathedral until today when it 
comes to LIHEAP? Nothing. Those were very powerful words, but they 
require powerful actions. We have not seen, in this respect, those 
actions.
  We have to do other things to get our energy house in order. In fact, 
this is not just an issue of domestic politics. It is probably the 
single most important thing we can do over the next several years to 
improve our strategic position in the world vis-a-vis those who would 
be our adversaries or those who compete with us. From a national 
security standpoint, we have to take steps to make our energy future 
more independent, more sensible. But we have to do things today that 
will help Americans.
  I am very proud Senator Cantwell is a cosponsor of this particular 
amendment. She is also the sponsor of the Energy Emergency Consumer 
Protection Act to bring prices down at the gas pump in the wake of 
natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.
  In addition, we have to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profit Rebate 
Act which imposes a temporary windfall profit tax on big oil companies 
and uses the revenue to bring a rebate to American consumers to help 
offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products. I am told the oil 
companies--the energy companies--will be reporting their quarterly 
earnings in the next few days, and most estimates are they could be the 
most profitable reports ever issued by companies in this country 
because of this extraordinary run-up in pricing. Some of that money 
should come back to Americans.
  Total energy spending in this Nation this year will approach $1 
trillion--24 percent higher than in 2004. It will claim the largest 
share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil 
and natural gas companies make huge profits while workers' salaries are 
declining in real terms. This is wrong. We have to fix it.
  We have to pass Senator Cantwell's legislation, Senator Dorgan's 
legislation, and, of course, immediately, we have to help restore 
funding and increase funding for LIHEAP program. The President and 
Secretary Bodman have called on Americans to reduce their energy use. 
They have to lead by example. One way to lead is to support, 
articulate, and advocate, for sensible energy programs and this LIHEAP 
proposal to increase that funding.
  We have to do much more. I hope we begin, with respect to energy, by 
recognizing the pending crisis that will face so many families in this 
country, so many seniors. They will be cold this winter. They will give 
up eating so they can heat their homes. They will miss mortgage 
payments and rent payments because they have to at least stay warm.
  We can do much better. America can do better. I hope we do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 of the 109th 
Congress, the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, I 
make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in 
this amendment.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable sections of 
the act referenced by the Senator and at the appropriate time would ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure 
be set aside to be set for a vote at a time determined by the leaders 
on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I would 
like to enter into a time agreement to speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object to the request?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is time to speak. We would be happy 
to find the time for the distinguished Senator from Washington to 
speak. We are just asking this be set aside. If the objection is 
sustained, we will go immediately to a vote and get it out of the way.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe what 
happened, the floor manager raised a budget point of order. I have 
requested a waiver of that act. We have agreed at some time in the 
future we will have a vote on that. Now it is in order to have further 
discussion of the amendment, and Senator Cantwell can discuss her 
amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I believe that is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators are correct.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, before I yield the floor to the other 
Senators who wish to speak, first, let me point out that while LIHEAP 
is a very important subject, it has nothing to do with this bill. There 
will be the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on the floor next week. There 
will also be a supplemental bill which will deal with it. While I am a 
big supporter of LIHEAP, this measure should be appropriately discussed 
in the forum where LIHEAP is handled. Either one of those two vehicles 
is appropriate.
  Now, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 today, the 
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment No. 2063, 
to be followed by a vote in relation to the Enzi amendment No. 2115. I 
further ask consent that prior to those votes there be 3 hours for 
debate equally divided between Senators Enzi and Kennedy to run 
concurrently on both the Enzi and Kennedy amendments; provided further 
that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior 
to the votes. I further ask consent that if either amendment does not 
have 60 votes in the affirmative, that amendment then be automatically 
withdrawn or fall to the point of order, if applicable. I further ask 
consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I do not 
think I will object--but in order to expedite consideration of 
amendments on the floor, I was wanting to offer the remaining amendment 
I have, with very brief comments, so that at least I have offered the 
amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Craig. I was hoping

[[Page 23169]]

to be able to do that following the remarks of the Senator from 
Washington, who I believe is going to comment on the legislation she is 
cosponsoring with Senator Reed. So if it would be acceptable to the 
chairman and ranking member, following the remarks of the Senator from 
Washington, if I would be recognized simply to lay the amendment down. 
I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  Mr. BOND. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the initial request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you.


                           Amendment No. 2077

  Madam President, I do rise to support the Reed-Collins amendment to 
further make a down payment on the low-income energy assistance program 
known as LIHEAP.
  This is a program the State of Washington knows all too well. I say 
that because our State was hard hit by an energy crisis in the last 
several years that left many low-income people suffering the 
consequences of high energy costs. If anything, the Northwest is a 
poster child for what is about to happen to the rest of the country. 
Those results were devastating. In one county alone, Snohomish County, 
where I live, we had a 44-percent increase in disconnect rates in 1 
year. That meant 14,000 people lost power to their homes because of 
high energy costs.
  Those high energy costs were also passed on to school districts, 
which had to choose between hiring teachers and getting books and 
paying the high cost of energy. It also had an impact on economic 
development. Businesses decided that perhaps they did not want to move 
to that county if they were energy-intensive users and businesses on 
low margins until the energy rates come down again. We saw people who 
actually lost their jobs and lost their pensions because of those high 
energy costs.
  What this amendment does, added to this bill, is to give the 
consumers in America who are the most hard hit by energy costs some 
relief. If you think about it, we are talking about the elderly, the 
disabled, those who are on low incomes. We are talking about an 
individual who may make less than $12,000 a year or a couple who may 
make less than $16,000 a year. Now they are faced with anywhere from a 
30- to 50-percent increase in energy costs. It is a question as to 
whether they are going to be able to keep the lights on and the heat in 
the home or whether they are going to be left out in the cold by this 
administration and by this Congress.
  I hope my colleagues will do the right thing in adopting the Reed-
Collins amendment and being serious about LIHEAP, knowing the 
devastating consequences of the high cost of energy to our economy and 
people on the margins. It is heartless to think we would continue to 
adopt resolution after resolution dealing with other impacts to our 
economy and leave those most vulnerable out in the cold.
  The LIHEAP Program serves a very small percentage of the people who 
actually qualify. Last year, 72,000 Washington State residents received 
assistance from the LIHEAP Program, but many more could actually 
qualify. That is, there are many more who are living on the margins who 
need that kind of help and assistance to stay in their home.
  Last week, I met with a woman who has lung cancer, the mother of 
five, who is disabled, who needs the LIHEAP Program to continue to 
remain in her home. Yet 76 percent of those who qualify who will not 
get aid. This piece of legislation will not help all of them, but it 
will help a small percent. It will help a small percent of Northwest 
residents who will be battling the high cost of energy again for 
another year in a row, to get some assistance from the low-energy 
income program.
  This amendment should be a top priority for the Members of this body. 
I say that because, having fought to get these LIHEAP Programs from the 
contingency fund in the past when my State was greatly impacted, I know 
how important it was to the residents who actually received them. Now 
the rest of the country is going to be impacted by those same dynamics 
of very high energy costs. The question is whether we will, as a body, 
approve the Reed-Collins amendment to actually take the appropriations 
level up to the level that has been in the authorizing bill. I think it 
is the prudent thing to do. I think it is the wise thing to do to help 
the residents of this country, who are going to suffer from a very 
tough winter and high energy costs.
  I, like my colleague Senator Reed, want to fight for other 
legislation that will help us reduce the high cost of energy and 
certainly look at the practices of predatory pricing. We need to give 
consumers the confidence that there is competition in the marketplace, 
that there are Federal agencies that will protect consumers from price 
gouging, and that those who participate in price-gouging activities 
will spend time in jail. But in the meantime, as we are continuing to 
push and fight for that legislation, we need to make sure those who are 
most vulnerable in our society get the help and support they deserve. 
So I hope my colleagues will take the Reed-Collins amendment this 
afternoon and realize we cannot give tax breaks to others and leave 
those most vulnerable in our society without the hope of a warm, secure 
winter.
  America can do better. We can take care of the elderly, the disabled, 
and the low income when it means they are going to have to pay 
exorbitant energy costs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 2133

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Craig from Idaho, Senator Enzi from Wyoming, and 
Senator Baucus from Montana, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Craig, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2133.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 restrict enforcement of the Cuban Assets Control 
              Regulations with respect to travel to Cuba)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to administer or enforce part 515 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control 
     Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel-related 
     transaction.
       (b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to--
       (1) the administration of general or specific licenses for 
     travel or travel-related transactions;
       (2) section 515.204, 515.206, 515.332, 515.536, 515.544, 
     515.547, 515.560(c)(3), 515.569, 515.571, or 515.803 of such 
     part 515; or
       (3) transactions in relation to any business travel covered 
     by section 515.560(g) of such part 515.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer this bipartisan amendment on 
behalf of myself, Senator Craig, Senator Enzi, and Senator Baucus. It 
is an amendment that has been considered previously, and considered 
successfully by the Senate, but it has not made it into law because of 
problems in conference committees. It deals with the issue of 
restricting the rights of the American people to travel to Cuba.
  As you know, we now have a situation where the American people are 
not free to travel to Cuba. We are free to travel to China, a Communist 
country. We are free to travel to Vietnam, a Communist country. We are 
free to travel to North Korea, a Communist country. We are not free to 
travel to Cuba, however. The reason for that is Fidel Castro has been 
sticking his finger in America's eye for a long while. It is a 
Communist country, a government that causes a lot of problems for our 
country, and the decision was made some long while ago that we are 
going to somehow punish Fidel Castro by restricting the American 
people's right to travel to Cuba.

[[Page 23170]]

  We also, for 40-some years now, have had an embargo with respect to 
the country of Cuba. For most of that time, we also prevented American 
farmers from selling food to the country of Cuba. I have always felt it 
is basically immoral to use food as a weapon and to prevent the selling 
of food to the Cubans. Canadians sell food to the Cubans. European 
farmers sell food to the Cubans. But we could not; that is, until then-
Senator Ashcroft from Missouri and I offered an amendment on the floor 
of the Senate that opened, just a crack, that embargo so that we are 
now able to sell some food into the country of Cuba.
  We have sold about $1 billion worth of food since that amendment of 
ours became law. Even now, the administration is trying to shut down 
that ability of farmers to sell food into Cuba, by dramatically 
changing the legal definition of the term ``payment of cash in 
advance'' that is in the law, something the Congressional Research 
Service believes is inappropriate for the administration to do. With 
this change of definition they are actually requiring the payment for 
the food products our farmers would sell into Cuba to be made before 
the food is even shipped. That is not the way commerce works, and yet 
they are doing that to try to shut down the ability of American farmers 
to sell food into Cuba.
  Nonetheless, we have sold $1 billion worth of food to the Cubans. It 
is the right thing to do. Withholding food and medicine as a part of 
any embargo is the wrong thing to do. Fidel Castro has never missed 
breakfast, lunch, or dinner because of our embargo. He has eaten just 
fine, thank you. It is poor, sick, and hungry people who get hurt with 
these kinds of public policies.
  I put in this appropriations bill at the subcommittee level a 
provision that trips the administration's attempt to inhibit farmers 
from selling into Cuba. So I fixed that problem. That is in the bill as 
it comes to the floor. We had kind of a contentious discussion about 
that in the subcommittee, but I won. And again, on a bipartisan basis, 
we stuck that in the bill. It says to this administration: You cannot 
be doing these things that we believe are not legal to impede the 
ability of American farmers to sell food into the Cuban marketplace.
  We have not, however, dealt with the issue of restricting the 
American people's right to travel to Cuba. Are we hurting Fidel Castro 
by prohibiting Americans from traveling to Cuba? I do not think so. All 
that does is slap the American people around by restricting their right 
to travel.
  Let me show you a couple of examples, if I might. This young woman in 
this picture was in my office. This young woman's name is Joni Scott, a 
wonderful young woman. She went to Cuba. She went to Cuba to distribute 
free Bibles on the streets of Cuban cities. Joni Scott went to 
distribute free Bibles in Cuba. Why? She is a person of great faith, 
with a missionary spirit, and she wanted to take that faith and talk 
about that faith with the people of Cuba.
  Well, guess what happened to Joni Scott. The U.S. government says you 
can't distribute free Bibles to the people of Cuba. You have to get a 
license from the State Department to go to Cuba, and they are not going 
to give you a license. She did not know that, of course. She simply 
went to Cuba to distribute free Bibles. The U.S. government slapped her 
with a big fine. Do you know who did that? The folks who are being 
funded in the bill, OFAC, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, deep in 
the bowels of the Treasury Department.
  The people in OFAC are supposed to be tracking the financing of 
terrorism. They are the folks who ought to be looking at the arteries 
that control the money that finances Osama bin Laden, for example, and 
other terrorist organizations. But guess what. Those folks down in 
OFAC, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, have been spending their 
time tracking down American citizens who are suspected of taking 
vacations in Cuba--American citizens under suspicion of taking 
vacations in Cuba.
  Well, they tracked Joni Scott down and slapped a big fine on Joni 
Scott, an American citizen, for trying to distribute free Bibles in 
Cuba. Apparently, they are not even embarrassed about it.
  This is a picture of Sergeant Lazo, U.S. Army National Guard. He won 
the Bronze Star for bravery in the country of Iraq, fighting for this 
country. His children are in Cuba. One of his kids was very ill. After 
he finished his tour of duty in Iraq and was back in this country, he 
wanted to go visit his sick son. This United States soldier, a hero, 
having fought and won a Bronze Star in Iraq for his country, was told 
by his country: You might have been fighting for freedom in Iraq, but 
you don't have the freedom as an American soldier--you don't have the 
freedom as an American citizen--to go visit your sick child in Cuba. 
Unbelievable.
  We voted on that here on the floor of the Senate. The only way I 
could get that up for a vote was to require suspension of the rules, 
which takes 66 votes. I got 60 votes. It fell short. So this man has 
never been allowed to go to Cuba to visit his child.
  There is an epilog to this. His children are going to come here for a 
brief visit. The Cuban Government has approved that. But the U.S. 
Government won't give him the freedom to travel to Cuba to visit his 
children.
  I could talk about Joan Slote. Joan Slote answered an ad in a 
bicycling magazine to take a cycling trip to Cuba. Joan was 75 years 
old. She was a cyclist and she wanted to go on a bicycling tour with a 
Canadian bicycling group. She did. She came back and found out her son 
had brain cancer. She didn't get her mail on time and didn't see that 
the Federal Government was trying to fine her $10,000 for having 
traveled to Cuba to ride a bike. Because she was attending to her son, 
she didn't get the letter from the Treasury Department, so they decided 
they were going to try to slap an attachment on her Social Security 
check.
  This is America? I don't think so. We should restrict the freedom of 
the American people because we want to slap around Fidel Castro? How 
about deciding we are not going to restrict the freedom of the American 
people. If you want to bring a different kind of government to Cuba, 
you do it through trade and travel. That is what we argue in regard to 
other countries. This administration and past administrations have said 
that the way to advance the interests toward democracy and greater 
human rights in Communist China is through trade and travel. The way to 
advance the interests toward greater human rights and democracy in 
Communist Vietnam is through trade and travel. Cuba? No, we have to 
restrict the right of the American people to travel to Cuba. And if 
they do, track them down. There is a little agency, this arthritic 
agency in the Department of Treasury, called OFAC. They have more 
people in that agency tracking American citizens who are suspected of 
going to Cuba than they have searching for the financial links that are 
supporting Osama bin Laden's terrorism. Isn't that unbelievable? I have 
half a notion to offer an amendment to get rid of OFAC. We have all 
these acronyms around here. All I know is, these are people sitting 
someplace in the basement of the Treasury Department trying to figure 
out, through lists of names, whether somebody might have gone to Cuba. 
And God forbid they brought a cigar back. Let's double the fine.
  In fact, even more Byzantine, last year OFAC sent people to airports 
around the country to train Border Patrol and Homeland Security agents 
on how to intercept Americans who were suspected of visiting Cuba. I 
looked through the list of what they recovered. The most ominous thing 
they recovered was carbon dioxide used to make seltzer water. They did 
pick up a couple cigars and some ordinary cold medicine. But they 
certainly took some resources away from Homeland Security that probably 
ought to have been looking at terrorist threats so they could track 
down Joni Scott who wants to deliver Bibles on the streets of a city in 
Cuba.
  There was also the disabled sports team that participates in 
marathons using artificial legs and in wheelchairs.

[[Page 23171]]

They planned to participate in the Havana Marathon and then distribute 
racing wheelchairs and handcycles to Cuba's disabled athletes. Except 
OFAC said that our team couldn't go. These disabled Americans were 
told, no, you can't go. That is unbelievable.
  We will have a vote on this. The President will threaten a veto of 
the bill if it is in the bill, and we will have people around here 
scratching their heads and thumbing their suspenders and saying: How 
should I vote on this?
  How about a simple vote that represents a little bit of common sense, 
just a smidgeon. Go to any cafe in America, have a cup of coffee and 
ask somebody, do you think it is a good idea that we ought to slap 
around the American people and go investigate them and chase them down 
and slap them with a $10,000 fine because they joined a Canadian 
bicycle tour of Cuba? Or do you think we ought to say to a veteran who 
earned the Bronze Star for heroism in Iraq that when you come back to 
this country, you have all the freedoms of an American except you don't 
have the freedom to travel to Cuba to see your sick son? We know what 
the answer is. If we have enough people around here with the courage to 
vote the right way, to use a smidgeon of common sense--I am not asking 
everybody to use all the common sense, just a smidgeon, this just 
requires a blink--to vote the right way, maybe we will get something 
done.
  This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. It is about public policy 
that makes sense for this country. If something is happening that is 
basically ``dumb,'' we ought to fix it. This makes no sense. This 
policy is at odds with our entire foreign policy with respect to other 
Communist countries. Can you imagine today if I proposed having the 
Cuba policy with respect to China and Vietnam? We would say to those 
Americans, you can't travel to China. Why? Because we don't like the 
Chinese Government, so you can't go there. Does that make any sense? Do 
you think that would be in our best interest? Would that represent good 
foreign policy? The answer is no.
  We have advocated that the best way to move these countries toward 
greater human rights and greater democracy is through trade and travel. 
It would be nice if the only voice Cubans are hearing would not be 
Fidel Castro but, in fact, Joni Scott or Joan Slote or a couple from 
Dubuque who might be vacationing in Havana. It would be nice if the 
Cuban people would hear those voices as well. They do not now because 
they are prohibited as a result of American law. It is a law I aim to 
change.
  I offer this amendment with my colleagues, Senators Craig, Enzi, and 
Baucus--two Republicans, two Democrats. This is not about partisanship. 
It is about doing the right thing. My hope is this amendment will see a 
successful vote. I understand there will be some sumo wrestling between 
now and when we get a vote, because no one ever wants to have a vote on 
this. There will be all kinds of contortions going on to find a way to 
avoid having a vote on this. But it is perfectly germane and relevant. 
It is a restriction on funding. My expectation would be before the bill 
gets off the floor, we would have a vote on this. I hope a sufficient 
number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle will decide to vote for 
it and we can get this done finally.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
friend from North Dakota. He has made an excellent case for this 
amendment. I want to note that I am a cosponsor of bipartisan 
legislation introduced earlier this year that would allow this travel 
between the United States and Cuba.
  Current policy with regard to Cuba, as enforced by the Treasury 
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, permits travel to Cuba 
today only with permission in the form of a license from the Treasury 
office for certain reasons such as visits to relatives or journalism or 
religious or humanitarian purposes. According to Treasury documents, 
between 1996 and 2003, about a third of Cuba travel cases opened for 
investigation were referred for civil penalty enforcement action.
  As the Senator from North Dakota said, these typical penalty 
assessments for unauthorized travel range from $3,000 to $7,500. That 
is preposterous. For the last 40 years, the United States has 
maintained this isolationist position toward Cuba, and the current 
regime has been there the entire time. I believe, as the Senator from 
North Dakota so eloquently stated, that permitting travel to Cuba will 
help demonstrate to Cuba's citizens what a democracy is all about.
  I tell my colleague that I had a young group of baseball players who 
went through the entire rigmarole as a young team to go to Cuba a 
number of years back. They had to go through an entire process. It was 
amazing what they had to go through to go down and participate in a 
Little League team playoff with a number of players from Cuba. I had 
them come back and visit with me when they returned. They wanted to 
thank me for helping them get through this process. I sat there and 
listened to them as they told me that they actually lost every single 
game. Finally, it was so lopsided that the Cuban young boys and they 
got together and decided, this is ridiculous. We are just losing. So 
they intermixed their teams, half Cuban and half American, and finished 
the playoffs that way. What a great thing for democracy. These young 
people showed to all of us exactly what we want happening in Cuba, that 
we can sit down, a group of 12-year-old boys, and learn how to get 
along and to be able to promote some real important values.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am wondering if that wasn't under the old rules. The 
new rules have been tightened up dramatically by administration edict. 
Under the new rules, teams such as that in most cases would not be able 
to visit Cuba.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. This was about 10 
years ago. Since that time, if these young kids were to come today to 
my office to ask for help, they would not be able to go and do it. What 
a way to dampen the enthusiasm of young boys in our country. It is 
telling them that democracy is not about conversations and learning and 
education and participation. I think that is a negative message. I 
appreciate the Senator's offering the amendment. I know the 
administration has issued a veto threat on this bill if this provision 
is allowed to be included. I say that veto threats have been made on 
other provisions in this bill. I don't see any reason why the Senate 
should not go on record and state its view. It is time to lift the 
travel restrictions on Cuba for all the reasons the Senator from North 
Dakota has outlined today. I hope we will get to a vote and be able to 
move forward on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me finally show the chart I mentioned. 
I have many others. OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control, down in the 
bowels of the Treasury Department, is supposed to be tracking 
terrorists. Here is what OFAC did. These are disabled marathoners. They 
trained and trained. In fact, as I understand it, these folks even had 
airline tickets, and they had everything all set. But were they allowed 
to go to the international meet in Havana? No. No, they were turned 
down by our country because you don't have the freedom to do that. To 
say that these folks were disappointed is an understatement. They might 
wonder about whether we have freedom in this country, when we don't 
have the freedom to travel to this Cuba. Why? Because we don't like its 
leaders.
  Look, there are many countries that have leaders I am not 
particularly fond of. I don't want to restrict the right of the 
American people to travel there. In addition to Joni Scott and disabled 
athletes and so many others, the stories now are unbelievable. In the 
last 3 years, this has been laced up tight, even for folks with close 
relatives. I

[[Page 23172]]

can tell you of people whose parents were dying, on their deathbed, 3 
days away from dying, and their children in this country were not 
allowed to go see their mother or father in Cuba.
  I won't put up the picture of the guy from the State of Washington 
whose father died, and his last wishes were that his ashes be dispersed 
on the grounds of the church he served as a pastor in Cuba. So a 
compliant son, after the death of his father, said: I want to do that. 
It was his last wish. He took his dad's ashes and went to Cuba and went 
to the church and distributed his father's ashes on the grounds of the 
church his father had ministered at for many years. Then this country's 
Government tracked him down and tried to slap a big fine on him for 
doing it. Unbelievable. We can do better than that. Our country doesn't 
deserve this sort of nonsense.
  I appreciate the support of the Senator from Washington. As I 
indicated, this is bipartisan. It is not about Republicans or 
Democrats. It is about what is thoughtful and what is thoughtless. 
Let's choose the thoughtful approach for a change.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2063, as Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is a general 
agreement among the leadership that the time between 1:30 p.m. and 4:30 
p.m. be equally divided between myself, who offered an increase in the 
minimum wage, and the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, who has offered a 
different approach. We will have an opportunity to control the time in 
that way.
  Mr. President, I yield myself what time I might use.
  At 4:30 p.m., we will have an opportunity to vote in this body on 
whether there ought to be an increase in the minimum wage, a minimum 
wage that has not been increased over the last 9 years. I am very 
hopeful that we will vote in this body in support of the proposal I 
have before the Senate which will increase the minimum wage by $1.10. 
This is the figure that was included in the Republican alternative of 
over a year ago. The Republican alternative had additional provisions, 
and we will have an opportunity to talk about those proposals.
  For the information of those people who might be listening to the 
debate, here is our amendment. It is 2 pages long, and it provides an 
increase in the minimum wage of $1.10. This is the Republican proposal, 
which is 87 pages long, which will change the whole concept of the 
minimum wage and effectively eliminate coverage of the minimum wage for 
up to 10 million Americans.
  The increase in the minimum wage is not complicated. We increase it 
$1.10. We do it over a 2-year period. It is all in the 2-page amendment 
I have offered.
  There is an alternative, which is the Republican alternative, which 
basically undermines, in a very significant and important way, the 
coverage for minimum wage workers and effectively eliminates coverage 
and protection, even for minimum wage workers.
  We will have a chance for this body to make a decision as to whether 
they want to see those workers in this country, who have been left out 
and left behind, get a modest bump in their income.
  I offered this measure on this legislation because this is the 
vehicle which carried the increase in the cost of living for Members of 
the Congress and Senate. It seems to me, if we were going to vote on 
that, we ought to vote on an increase in the minimum wage. It is the 
judgment--and one I support--that Members of Congress will not take a 
cost-of-living increase in their pay this year. We defer that increase.
  The fact remains that over the last 9 years, the Congress has 
increased its pay by $28,000 on seven different occasions. On seven 
different occasions, it has raised its salary, but we have not 
increased the pay for those who are at the lower end of the economic 
ladder who are making minimum wage. I think that is absolutely 
unconscionable. We will have an opportunity this afternoon to find out 
whether we are going to do that. In the institution that has raised its 
salary $28,000 over the last 9 years, we will have an opportunity to 
see whether we are going to increase annual income by $2,300.
  This chart is an indication of the tradition of the Senate since the 
increase in the minimum wage.
  This demonstrates very clearly the increase in the minimum wage. The 
initiation was by President Roosevelt back in the 1930s and then Harry 
Truman increased it and then Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, increased 
it. The history of the increase in the minimum wage has been 
bipartisan. Dwight Eisenhower increased it. President Kennedy increased 
it; President Johnson; President Ford, a Republican, increased it; 
President Carter increased it; President Bush 1 increased it and 
President Clinton. So this has been bipartisan.
  It is difficult for me to understand how the increase in the minimum 
wage has ended up as a partisan issue. It has been bipartisan. The 
reason it has been bipartisan is because of whom the minimum wage 
affects. The fact is minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity. 
They are hard workers. They are the men and women who clean out the 
buildings for American commerce. They help and assist our 
schoolteachers in schools all over this country. They work in our 
nursing homes to provide help and assistance for the frail elderly, the 
elderly who have sacrificed so much for their own children and have 
done so much to make this a great nation. Many of them are served by 
the minimum wage.
  First, these are men and women of dignity, working hard, more often 
than not having two or even three jobs, trying to provide for their 
families and having an increasingly difficult time to make any ends 
meet, and we will get to that.
  This issue primarily affects women because about 65 percent of all 
minimum wage workers are women. The majority of the women who earn the 
minimum wage have children. So it is a women's issue, it is a 
children's issue, and it is a family issue because we have families, 
heads of household in many instances, single moms or single dads, 
trying to provide for their children, working one or two or even three 
jobs, trying to make ends meet. So it is a women's issue because so 
many of the minimum wage workers are women and a children's issue 
because those children's lives are affected by obviously the 
circumstance of the one who is providing for them. It is a civil rights 
issue because so many of these jobs are open to men and women of color. 
So it is a civil rights issue, a family issue, a women's issue, a 
children's issue, but most of all it is a fairness issue.
  The American people understand fairness. They understand if someone 
is going to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, they should not 
have to live in poverty. Republicans have understood that, Democratic 
Presidents have understood it, and I cannot for the life of me 
understand why our Republican friends on the other side of the aisle, 
when we have changed our increase in the minimum wage from $2.10 down 
to $1.10 over the next 2 years, refuse to be willing to accept it.
  What is it that they have against working poor people, men and women 
who are trying to get the first rung on the economic ladder? What is it 
about it that is so offensive to this body that we do not give them an 
increase in the minimum wage and we give ourselves repeated increases? 
That is the issue. And at 4:30 this afternoon, this institution will 
have a chance to express itself.
  The American people understand this. The American people understand 
the minimum wage. There are a lot of complex issues, and men and women 
across this country are working hard every single day. They have little 
time to spend trying to figure out a lot of different kinds of 
challenges, but they

[[Page 23173]]

understand an increase in the minimum wage. They understand what 
difference this makes. They will have an opportunity to hear about it 
because this issue is not going away. No matter how this turns out this 
afternoon, the Senate, and most importantly the workers at the minimum 
wage, can be confident that I am going to continue to raise this as 
long as I am in the Senate. We will have an opportunity to vote on this 
repeatedly.
  So we can find those of our colleagues who want to try and confuse 
the issue all they want with 87 pages, but this is an increase in the 
minimum wage which consists of 2 pages. That is what the vote is for 
this afternoon. Some of my colleagues want to rewrite the labor laws on 
this. Fine, let us get to it. But why are we doing that on this 
particular bill? Increase in the minimum wage, one can ask, why on this 
bill? Very simply, it was a good enough vehicle to increase the salary 
of the Members of Congress until yesterday when we neutralized it and 
it ought to be a good enough vehicle to provide some assistance to 
those on the first rung of the economic ladder. That certainly makes 
sense to me. That is not what the Republican alternative is about.
  So we have seen that this has been historically something Republicans 
and Democrats, when they are at their best, have supported. Over a 
period of years, we have seen what has happened on the issues of 
productivity. We hear frequently that we cannot afford an increase in 
the minimum wage unless we are going to have an increase of 
productivity. It is an old economic argument we do not want to add to 
inflation, but if we have an increase in productivity, of course, then 
we can consider an increase in the minimum wage because it will not 
have an inflationary impact in terms of the economy.
  All right. Let us take that argument and see what has happened in 
terms of productivity over the period of recent years. We have seen 
now, over the period of the last 40 years, productivity has gone up 115 
percent. Notice that going back into the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, 
the minimum wage and productivity lines were always intersecting 
because we kept the increase in the minimum wage and productivity 
together. That was an argument that was made. There is plausibility to 
it.
  If that argument was good enough for the 30 or 40 years that we first 
had the minimum wage, look what has happened in recent times. Workers 
have increased their productivity 115 percent, but the minimum wage has 
declined some 31 percent. So one cannot say we cannot increase the 
minimum wage because we have not had an increase in productivity. So 
this is certainly one of the factors.
  This chart is enormously interesting because it shows that Americans' 
work hours have increased more than any other industrial country in the 
world. Look at this chart. This is an indication of the changes in 
hours worked per person over the period of 1970 to the year 2002. 
Actually, in a number of the countries in Western Europe, the percent 
has gone down, but we have seen in Australia, Canada, and most of all 
in the United States, it has gone up. Americans are working longer, 
they are working harder, they are producing more, and one would think 
that their paychecks would reflect it, at least at the lower economic 
end, or in all areas it ought to reflect it, but, no, it does not work 
that way. We refuse to give that kind of a recognition.
  Unfortunately, when the President was asked about the challenges that 
people working for the minimum wage face, the individual conversation 
between the President and Ms. Mornin, who is a single mother of three, 
one of whom is disabled, Ms. Mornin said this was on February 4, 2005, 
in the Omaha Arena in Omaha, NE--I work three jobs and I feel like I 
contribute.
  President Bush: You work three jobs?
  Ms. Mornin: Three jobs.
  President Bush: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is 
fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
  That is an indication that there are people in this city who just do 
not understand what is happening to people who are earning the minimum 
wage level. They are not getting any kind of recognition. People do not 
understand what their particular challenge is, but they ought to. I 
think more Americans do today than they did several months ago.
  One of the most moving covers of any magazine was this September 19 
cover of Newsweek. It shows a child with tears on her face: Poverty, 
race, Katrina, lessons of a national shame.
  In this rather extensive article about the enormous tragedy that took 
place in the gulf and in New Orleans, it talks about the other America: 
An enduring shame Katrina reminded us, but the problem is not new. Why 
a rising tide of people live in poverty, who they are, and what we can 
do about it.
  There are the striking photos of people who were left out and left 
behind. The whole article is about hard-working individuals in that 
region of the country down in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. 
Suddenly, the Nation was focused on their particular plight because 
when the floods came to New Orleans, we saw the tragic circumstances 
that they were subject to, the lack of preparation, the lack of 
organization, and the lack of outreach to them for so many days. These 
people are still struggling. Along the gulf coast, many of those 
communities were absolutely obliterated.
  I had the opportunity, with several of my colleagues, to visit those 
areas 3 weeks ago or so and to meet a number of the individuals, not 
the particular persons who are outlined in this article but individuals 
whose lives were absolutely the same. We find so many of our fellow 
Americans who are living in poverty. We find increasing numbers of 
Americans living in poverty. There are 5 million more people living in 
poverty. I have a chart that shows it, but it certainly does not tell 
the story that one sees when they visit the gulf area and visit New 
Orleans and meet some of these families or even visit with them.
  In my own State of Massachusetts at the Otis Base, where we had 
several hundred of the evacuees who came there, many of them rescued 
very late in the whole process because they had remained in their 
homes, some of them trying to help elderly and disabled people, and 
more than half of whom had arrived at Otis still in their damp and wet 
clothes, and they received an enormously generous and warm welcome, 
which they have expressed to our fellow citizens in Massachusetts.
  Their stories and their lives are stories of lost hope, lost homes, 
lost jobs, lost health insurance, lost every aspect, tangible aspects 
of their lives, separated families, and lost everything but their faith 
and a sense of hope, a desire to try and get back on their feet. I ask, 
How in the world is someone going to get back on their feet when they 
are getting paid $5.15 an hour? How are they going to get back on their 
feet?
  All they have to do is read through this magazine and read the life 
stories of these individuals who work and struggle in two and three 
different jobs. There is the case of Delores Ellis: Before Katrina 
turned her world upside down, this 51-year-old resident of New Orleans' 
Ninth Ward was earning the highest salary of her life as a school 
janitor, $6.50 an hour, no health insurance, no pension, and then she 
bounced around minimum wage jobs.
  Ellis said: I worked hard all my life. I cannot afford nothing. I am 
not saying that I want to keep up with the Joneses, but I just want to 
live better.
  Well, one of the ways that she can live better is an increase in the 
minimum wage. We cannot solve all of her problems, but we sure can 
provide some assistance by increasing her minimum wage. It is as simple 
as that.
  Americans can understand that. ``What can we do?'' they say. Well, 
there are a lot of things that have to be done. We cannot solve all of 
the problems, but we have to start someplace, and we are starting with 
an increase in the minimum wage.
  Here are the figures: 5.4 million more Americans in poverty over the 
period of the last 4 years. This is a fierce indictment, and we are 
going to see these figures have even expanded as a result of the 
terrible effects from Katrina.
  This is what has happened. As we look over history, we see at other

[[Page 23174]]

times and other Congresses, when Congresses were controlled by 
Republicans and Democrats--look here, from 1960 all the way through 
1980, we have the minimum wage effectively at the poverty level. This 
is in constant dollars. This was over a period of some 30 years, 
Republicans and Democrats alike. We say if you work hard, want to work 
and work hard, you are not going to have to live in poverty here in the 
United States.
  Look what has happened in recent years. Here were the last two 
increases we had in the minimum wage and here is the collapse again of 
the minimum wage in terms of its purchasing power.
  What did our brothers and sisters in the Congress, what did 
Republicans and Democrats know then, over a 30- or 40-year period, that 
we do not understand now? What is it, so that we are so unwilling to 
see a bump, a small bump of an increase in the minimum wage?
  Oh, no, we have an 85-page alternative, they will call it. This is an 
alternative filled with what we call poison pills, filled with taking 
people out of coverage, filled with new changes in overtime legislation 
to limit people from receiving any overtime.
  We know the importance of overtime to workers. Many of them use that 
overtime pay they receive to put away to educate a child. Here we have 
an attempt to undermine overtime for workers.
  An argument is sometimes made that we cannot afford a minimum wage 
because it will be an inflator in terms of our overall economy. Our 
economy is somewhat uncertain at the present time, and therefore we 
cannot afford to have an increase in the minimum wage because it will 
have an adverse impact in terms of our economy.
  This is an interesting chart: Increasing the minimum wage to $6.25 is 
vital to workers but a drop in the bucket of the national payroll. All 
Americans combined earn $5.7 trillion a year. A minimum wage increase 
to $6.25 would be less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the national 
payroll; one-tenth of 1 percent.
  You say this is an inflator; if we increase this to $6.25, this is 
going to add to the problems of inflation we are facing. Here it is, it 
is less than one-tenth of 1 percent.
  Look at what these working people are faced with. There is an 
increase in cost of gas of 74 percent. You ask so many of those people 
down in New Orleans why they were left trapped in New Orleans, and so 
many will tell you they were trapped because they couldn't afford a car 
or they couldn't afford the gasoline to get out, and therefore they 
were trapped. A number of them lost their lives. Others lost 
everything, because we have seen the increase in the cost of gasoline, 
74 percent; health insurance is out of sight for any of these families, 
up 59 percent; housing and rental gone up through the roof, and college 
tuition--it has gone up 35 percent, effectively eliminating those 
possibilities to so many.
  Now over this coming winter here, we have now at the end of October a 
chance to raise the minimum wage $1.10, the figure the Republicans had 
suggested last year. Here we have what is going to happen in our region 
of the country. In the colder region--not only the Northeast but in 
many of the colder regions--we are going to see a 50-percent increase 
in the cost of natural gas for heating, we are going to get about a 27 
to 30-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil, and about an 
increase of 5 to 7 percent in the cost of electricity. Our part of the 
country uses 40 percent natural gas, 40 percent heating oil, and this 
is the rest. We see what is happening in the home heating oil.
  Now we can say at least Congress is going to help some of these 
families because they are going to recognize the explosion of these 
costs of heating and keeping warm in these homes. In many instances it 
is as important as their prescription drugs and the food they eat. They 
are going to have to make some hard choices. This is the reality. We 
are saying at least give them $1.10. You are going to find out if any 
of the minimum wage workers, maybe working a couple of jobs and maybe 
with a home up in New England--their heating bills are going to go up 
$600 or $800 or $900 over the course of the winter.
  What is Congress doing? Basically it authorized the $5 billion to try 
to help provide some relief. We hear the explanation for the increase 
in these costs is because of what has happened to refineries in the 
gulf. That is an act of God. We couldn't control it. So those 
refineries are down. Now we find out that the gas and heating oil have 
gone up and it is going to be particularly harmful to needy people, to 
poor people, to people earning the minimum wage.
  Are we giving them any help and assistance? The answer is no to that. 
We are not seeing any increase in the home heating oil program, the 
LIHEAP Program. We are not seeing any increase in that.
  They are getting the short shrift every single way: No help and 
assistance in facing a cold winter, no help and assistance we can 
provide by approving a $1.10 increase.
  I see my friend from Iowa here on the floor. I want to point out to 
him, as someone who has been such a strong supporter on these issues, 
here is a two-page increase for the minimum wage in $1.10. Here is the 
Republican alternative, 85 pages. It rewrites the whole of labor laws, 
85 pages. If you are going to be against it, why don't you just be 
courageous enough to say no?
  No, no, they want to say: Oh, no, we have a real alternative in here. 
We are going to exclude a number of people who are covered with the 
minimum wage. That is where we are going to start, so they are not even 
going to get the $5.15 an hour. And we are going to make many people 
work overtime and not get overtime pay. Oh, yes, we will do that.
  You know what else, I say to Senator Harkin. There are provisions in 
here that say if you are an employer and you effectively violate what 
they call a paper report in here, you will get a nonmonetary fine. You 
will get no monetary fine, even though that might be an oil spill, that 
may be contaminated food. Why are we pulling that here in the Senate 
this afternoon? What is it about it that we suddenly know so much about 
that particular issue here on this particular legislation?
  If you are going to be against $1.10, be against $1.10. But they have 
all of the other shenanigans in that legislation that are going to 
provide additional short shrift for the neediest people.
  I will be glad to yield some time to my friend and colleague from 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his 
leadership on this issue and so many issues that affect working 
families in America. Senator Kennedy has been trying for years to get 
some measure of justice for the working poor in this country, trying to 
get the minimum wage raised. Senator Kennedy has been out here each of 
the last 7 or 8 years trying to get this done. Every year the other 
side turns him back. But this year we cannot turn him back. We have to 
adopt this increase, this modest increase in the minimum wage.
  We debated this amendment by Senator Kennedy last March on the 
bankruptcy bill, to raise the minimum wage. It failed on a largely 
party-line vote 46 to 49.
  We are back at it again. You would think after what we saw with 
Hurricane Katrina, where the mask was ripped off of George Bush's 
America, an America where the poor are out of sight and out of mind, 
you would think that Katrina brought home to us that they are very much 
present all over this country. By the poor, we don't mean those who are 
just not working, who are loafing or sloughing off; these are people 
who work. They go to work every day. They work hard. They try to raise 
their families. Yet, our minimum wage law says they are only worth 
$5.15 an hour, the same wage it was over 8 years ago. We have not 
raised it in 8 years.
  Thirteen percent of our people are living in poverty. I say to my 
friend from Massachusetts, there is always this talk about all the 
people who got off of welfare in the last decade. They

[[Page 23175]]

may have gotten off of welfare but they didn't get out of poverty. They 
are the working poor. They are working every day but they are not out 
of poverty. They may be off of welfare but they are not out of poverty.
  You would think those of us here in the Senate who have had our pay 
increased several times over the last 8 years to adjust for the 
increased cost of living would at least raise theirs. Right now minimum 
wage workers are earning $10,712 a year. I don't know if any of you 
have ever read the book by Barbara Ehrenreich called ``Nickel and 
Dimed,'' where she went out and tried to live on minimum wage jobs and 
what it was like. I commend it for your reading. It will give you an 
idea of what people go through as they try to work and raise their 
families.
  We keep hearing the age-old argument. I have heard it every time in 
the last 30 years I have served in both the House and Senate every time 
the minimum wage comes up: These are teenagers flipping hamburgers; 
nobody else makes that.
  But we know what the facts are. Facts are stubborn things. We have a 
lot of doubt--don't trust me, trust your own Department of Labor. Trust 
the one that is run downtown right now. Here is what they will tell 
you: 35 percent of those earning the minimum wage are their family's 
sole breadwinner--35 percent. It doesn't sound like a teenager flipping 
burgers to me.
  Sixty-one percent are women and one-third of those are raising 
children--61 percent of those are women. This is a women's issue, too, 
when you think about it. Most of them are stuck. Many of them are 
single parents. Many of them are not receiving child support, and they 
are doing their darnedest to raise their kids. They are working and 
they are making $5.15 an hour.
  Last March, when we voted on the Kennedy minimum wage increase, there 
was talk that the Senate Finance Committee would move a markup of a 
welfare reauthorization bill. I heard the words on the other side of 
the aisle--let's not do it now; we will wait for welfare 
reauthorization. We have been waiting. There is no welfare 
reauthorization bill. There is none.
  So now is the time to do it. We cannot wait any longer and neither 
can the working poor. The minimum wage needs to be raised to a level 
that is not just a subsistence wage but a wage that respects work, 
honors work, and rewards work at a reasonable level.
  Listen to this: Franklin Roosevelt, when we passed the first minimum 
wage law in the 1930s and Republicans were opposed to it--I assume that 
comes as no surprise to anyone here--President Franklin Roosevelt said:

       No business which depends for existence on paying less than 
     the living wages to its workers has any right to continue in 
     this country.

  He went on to say:

       By living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level. 
     I mean the wages of a decent living.

  President Franklin Roosevelt had it right. America can do better than 
what we are doing right now, a poverty wage of $5.15 an hour.
  Senator Kennedy went over some things I think bear repeating when you 
look at what is happening.
  I was in Iowa this weekend. What I am hearing more than anything else 
is the cost of natural gas prices, heating oil prices double. I heard 
testimony from a man that his heating oil prices have doubled.
  Low-income people have to go pay their heating bills.
  There is another little quirk in the law. The Senator from 
Massachusetts mentioned the LIHEAP program. We need to put money in the 
LIHEAP program. There is a little quirk in the law that even I didn't 
know about, and I have been working and supporting LIHEAP for all these 
years. If you are cut off of your supply, you are then ineligible for 
LIHEAP. Imagine that.
  Let us say you get heating oil. It is a deliverable commodity. It is 
not like a natural gas pipeline. Let us say you can't pay your bills. 
You have some bills left over, you can't pay them, and they refuse to 
deliver heating oil to your home. You are not now eligible for LIHEAP. 
That is right. You have to get the money upfront.
  That is what we are trying to get, more money for LIHEAP. Yet the 
other side will not allow us to do so. I had testimony from a young 
mother who got LIHEAP in this past year. You hear these stories. They 
tear your heart out. She is a single mother with a small baby. She said 
because they ran out of money, she put her baby in the bathtub in the 
small bathroom with a space heater during the day. Then at night, she 
puts her baby in two snowsuits and covers her up hoping that they would 
be warm all night as she put her in bed next to her.
  Real people live this way. It is hard for some of us to imagine. Real 
people live that way. They are making the minimum wage. That is what 
she was making, minimum wage.
  If you look at the price of gas, up 74 percent; health insurance, up 
59 percent; housing, up 44 percent; college tuition, up 35 percent, yet 
the minimum wage is stuck where it was 8 years ago. Who can afford to 
pay all of these increases? Obviously, if you are one of these big 
corporate CEOs, here is where you are, up here. Here is where workers' 
wages and benefits are, down here.
  Listen to this. I don't mean to pick on any one person. Mark Hurd 
took over as CEO of Hewlett-Packard in March of this year. He may be a 
fine, decent person. I do not know. I am casting no aspersions on him. 
I am just talking about what he got: an employment agreement worth $20 
million in cash, stock, and perks. Included in his pay package was a $2 
million signing bonus, a $2.7 million cash relocation allowance, free 
housing for a year, and a 4-year mortgage interest subsidy.
  With housing costs up 44 percent in the last 4 years, imagine what it 
would mean to a low-income family to have a year's worth of rent or 
mortgage-free housing. Imagine that. But Mr. Hurd, who got $20 million, 
got that.
  In 1999, Mercer Human Resources Consulting began tracking the proxy 
statements of 100 major U.S. corporations. In 2004, according to 
Mercer's survey, CEO bonuses rose 46.4 percent to a median of $1.14 
million, the largest percentage gain and the highest level in the last 
5 years. CEOs in this study enjoyed median total direct compensation of 
$4,419,300 per year. That CEO compensation figure in excess of $4 
million is 160 times the income of the average U.S. production worker 
last year.
  All we are asking for is a paltry $1.10 increase in the minimum wage. 
You would think this would be adopted unanimously in the Senate.
  So you can see the ``suits'' are taking care of themselves in our 
society. But the working poor, forget about it. They are left on the 
side of the road in the shadows.
  President Bush in New Orleans after Katrina said: ``We should 
confront poverty with bold action.''
  Where is the bold action? Where is the strong voice in the White 
House asking this Congress to step up to the plate to increase the 
minimum wage and do what is right. You have just the opposite. We have 
the White House supporting the Republicans in the Senate saying no to 
this small increase in the minimum wage.
  I think it is unconscionable. Have we in the Senate finally joined 
the Neiman Marcus crowd? Have we become so totally insulated from real 
families who shop at Wal-Mart and Kmart? Have we become so insulated 
from families who struggle to get by day after day that we can't even 
see the necessity of raising the minimum wage $1.10 an hour? Is that 
what we have become? I certainly hope not.
  I am sorry that somehow it becomes a partisan issue. It should not be 
a partisan issue. I would have thought the other side would join and 
say, yes, we have to do this together. We wouldn't be standing here 
having this debate.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment. It is the 
right thing to do. It is long overdue. I hope when people come to vote 
they think of those families out there who have nowhere else to turn.
  If we don't increase the minimum wage, they are going to be colder 
this winter, they are going to be sicker, they are going to go to the 
emergency

[[Page 23176]]

 rooms, and we will pick up that tab, too. Their kids are going to be 
less healthy. They will not learn as well in school. Anxiety levels 
will rise and families will disintegrate.
  To me, raising the minimum wage is a small price to pay for domestic 
tranquility, to say to those 37 million Americans out there--as I said, 
most of whom are women, many of whom raise families on the minimum 
wage--we can do better, and we have to do better.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank my leader and 
my colleague from Massachusetts, not only for today but for all of the 
battles he has waged for so many years on behalf of basic justice and 
fairness for America's working families.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I 
thank him for his great leadership on this and many other issues of 
basic justice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from New 
York may use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I find it almost hard to believe that we are on the 
floor of the Senate arguing over the necessity for an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  I am strongly supportive of Senator Kennedy's amendment, and proud to 
cosponsor it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
in favor of it and to oppose the second-degree amendment.
  This amendment does not go as far as I or Senator Kennedy and others 
would have preferred. It raises the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour, far 
short of the $7.25 an hour that Senator Kennedy and I and 48 other 
Senators proposed in March. But we could never get a vote on that. This 
amendment, however, should have even greater support than the 50 
cosponsors we had last March. It should pass unanimously out of this 
body. Fifty Senators just last March supported an increase to $7.25. 
And now we have to cut the increase with a hope that we can get, No. 1, 
the vote we are hoping to get on this appropriations bill, and, No. 2, 
an overwhelmingly bipartisan passage.
  Since March, we have seen even more evidence as to why this is 
critical. At a time when working families are struggling to make ends 
meet, it is critically important that we do something.
  Senator Kennedy has called this amendment a downpayment on what is 
truly needed. Today, the Federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, an 
amount that has not been increased since 1997.
  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the cost of living. Over 
the past 3 months, according to the Federal Department of Labor, 
inflation has increased more rapidly than any time since early in 1990.
  We also know the poverty rate is going back up. The fact is, there 
has not been one net new private-sector job created in the last 4\1/2\ 
years.
  This chart, which should be a rebuke to all of us, shows that we now 
have increased the number of people living in poverty. In 2000, we had 
31.6 million people, which was far too many. Now we are up 5.4 million. 
Why? Because the economy is not creating jobs, and many of the jobs 
that are in the economy are no longer paying wages that families can 
live on and can work their way out of poverty.
  We know everything else has gone up. Across America, people are 
spending 74 percent more on gas than they did at the beginning of 2001. 
Heating oil prices are expected to rise by more than 50 percent this 
winter. Such rapid price increases will force consumers, especially 
poor working people, to cut spending on clothing, health care, and food 
so they can get to work and keep warm this winter.
  These rising costs and falling wages are illustrated in this chart. 
Where heating oil is going up dramatically, the buying power of the 
minimum wage is going down. Of course, we are in the post-Katrina 
phase, which, lest we forget, demonstrated in stark terms how so many 
Americans live every day on the brink of economic disaster. Any setback 
becomes a major obstacle to being able to pay for gas, pay for food, 
pay for health care and prescription drugs, pay for tuition, pay for 
all of the necessities of life.
  It is hard to stand with this amendment before the Senate and not 
wonder, when will the majority stop giving privileges to the already 
privileged? At what point is it too much? Never has a political party 
given so much to so few who needed it so little. And it never ends. We 
are more than happy to continue to provide tax breaks for the 
wealthiest among us while we cut the social safety net, while we refuse 
to raise the minimum wage. Shame on us. At some point, there has to be 
a recognition that we are tilting the scales dramatically against 
average Americans. The middle-class wages are stagnant. Health care 
costs are going up. The number of the uninsured is going up because 
people who work hard for a living are no longer offered insurance or 
cannot afford to pay what it costs. Pensions and retirement security 
are at risk. There is something wrong with this picture.
  With all due respect to those who have a different economic 
philosophy, rich people did not make America great. I am all for rich 
people. Ever since my husband got out of office and got into the 
private sector, I think it is great. I never knew how much the 
President really liked us; he cannot give us enough tax cuts. I have 
nothing against rich people; that is part of the American dream. But 
with all due respect, it is not rich people who made America great. It 
is the vast American middle class. It is the upward mobility of people 
who thought they could do better than their parents.
  For more than 100 years, we have worked very hard to make sure the 
deck was not stacked against the average American. Teddy Roosevelt 
understood that if we did not have a fair playing field, if people were 
permitted to monopolize capital and abuse labor, a lot of people would 
get rich, but the vast majority of Americans would never get ahead. So 
he began to agitate for and accomplish making sure we had a fair 
economic system.
  As we moved through the 20th century, we saw adjustments made. 
Franklin Roosevelt understood that the hazards and vicissitudes of life 
strike any of us and that a fair and just society tries to provide a 
little help so that people overwhelmed by circumstances often beyond 
their control would be able to keep going, raise their children, and 
plan for the future. We put in a lot of Government programs to make 
sure we had a balance of power, a balance of power between capital and 
labor, between management and employees. And it worked very well.
  The history of the economic prosperity of the American middle class 
in the 20th century is the greatest example of what can happen in a 
democracy where people's energies are freed so they can compete for 
themselves but within a framework of rules. I am very proud of the 
progress we made in the 20th century, and I am particularly proud of 
the last 8 years of the 20th century where 22 million people were 
lifted out of poverty, where we raised the minimum wage, where we said 
to people: You have to work, but if you work, we will make sure you and 
your children have a fair chance.
  We have reversed that progress. It appears as though people are just 
sleepwalking through this Chamber and the Chamber on the other side of 
the Capitol. Don't we see what is happening before our very eyes? We 
are undermining the American dream. We are making it nearly impossible 
for people to believe that tomorrow will be better than today and 
yesterday.
  These numbers speak for themselves. Look at this. The minimum wage no 
longer even lifts a family out of poverty. You can go to work 40 hours 
a week, you can clean the rooms and the toilets in a motel, you can 
serve the food in a restaurant, you can work in a small factory, you 
can make that minimum wage, and you cannot even get your family out of 
poverty. What kind of message does that send? The whole idea of America 
is if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will be successful, 
you will have a chance to do better.
  Look at that chart. It speaks for itself. We have been on a steady 
slow

[[Page 23177]]

decline. Even when we got a bipartisan agreement to raise it in 1997, 
we still did not get above the Federal poverty line.
  What message are we sending to millions of hard-working Americans? I 
represent a lot of them. I represent people who are working hard for a 
living. You see them on bicycles in Manhattan delivering food. You see 
them doing all the hard work, the janitorial services at night. In 
upstate New York, I see them as they get up every day and go to work 
and believe that they are doing what they should do. What message are 
we sending them? Too bad, keep working. Don't expect anything from us. 
We are too busy giving tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans.
  That is a choice that will be made by this Senate. As far as I can 
tell, it will be a choice to vote against the minimum wage and to vote 
instead for the second-degree amendment which is designed not only to 
defeat Senator Kennedy's amendment but to do even more harm to the 
paychecks of working Americans.
  This is what I don't understand. The second-degree amendment denies 
more than 10 million workers the minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay 
rights by ending individual fair labor standards coverage and raising 
the threshold for which a business would be held accountable to 1 
million from 500,000. In short, and let's make no mistake about this, 
the second-degree amendment would be the end of the 40-hour workweek. 
So we can go right back to the end of the 19th century because that is 
where we are heading. There are those, bless their hearts, who believe 
America was better off at the end of the 19th century, when you were 
told what to do, and you had to do it, and you did not have much of a 
choice about it. I don't agree with that. I am proud of the progress we 
made in the 20th century, but I am absolutely convinced some people are 
trying to head us right back there.
  If it is the end of the 40-hour workweek and the end of the American 
weekend because there are no rules on overtime, that means a pay cut of 
$3,000 a year for the median-income earner and an $800 pay cut for 
those earning minimum wage. Now employees are already free to offer 
more flexible schedules under current law, but today if they come in 
and they tell an employee, ``Guess what, I need you this weekend, you 
are going to have to work'', they have to offer overtime when the work 
is more than 40 hours a week. The second-degree amendment would 
undermine that basic protection. So instead of making it easier for 
families to spend time together, we basically are going to tell workers 
that they have to do whatever they are told at risk of losing their job 
without any overtime pay or any other compensation.
  The second-degree amendment also prohibits States from providing 
stronger wage protections than the Federal standard for employees such 
as waiters and waitresses who rely on tips. The amendment removes 
agency discretion and creates a safe haven for violators of a broad 
range of consumer, environmental, and labor protections by prohibiting 
Federal agencies from assessing civil fines for most first-time 
reporting violations and preempts States' abilities to enforce these 
laws.
  In my State, we happen to think that some of those rules need to be 
enforced. James Madison said in the Federalist: If men were angels, 
there would be no need for a government. But we aren't, and we never 
will be, not on this Earth. The job of government is to help level that 
playing field, help right that balance. Otherwise, people are powerless 
to defend themselves, especially when they have to get up every day and 
go to work to keep body and soul together and food on the table, 
particularly if they are single parents trying to make do on minimum 
wage.
  It is disheartening. We could have had an up-or-down vote on the 
minimum wage. If you want to vote against the minimum wage, vote 
against the minimum wage. But to introduce a second-degree amendment 
loaded with poison pills that are against workers, that are against 
fairness, that speaks louder than any words I could say in this Senate.
  There will be a day of reckoning. We cannot continue to tilt the 
scales against the vast majority of Americans and not be held 
accountable in the political process. The mask has been ripped off of 
compassionate conservatism, and people see it for what it is--partisan 
politics to favor the rich. If that is what we are going to be fighting 
against in this Senate, I guess bring it on, because on that fight the 
vast majority of Americans, regardless of what party they claim, are on 
the same side. They want to make sure the deck is not stacked against 
them, that they have a fair chance to compete, and that their labor 
gets a fair return.
  I hope our colleagues will rally in support of Senator Kennedy's 
amendment and vote against the second-degree amendment. We should pass 
an increase in the minimum wage, and it should not come at the cost of 
denying basic rights to millions of Americans and turning the clock 
back to the 19th century, which is what it would do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the Senator such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as we speak in the Senate, sometimes we are 
caught up in hyperbole. I am certainly afraid that has been the case on 
the other side as they try to describe flextime. To say this is a 
return to the 19th century is a unique view of something which all 
Federal employees have the right to do today, which is to exercise 
flextime.
  Why is flextime allowed for Federal employees? Because there are a 
lot of people who work in the Federal Government who would like to have 
the opportunity, if somebody in their family, for example, is getting 
married, to be able to restructure their workweek so that one week they 
will work more hours, and the next week, maybe the week their daughter 
or son is getting married, they work fewer hours so they can 
participate in the excitement of planning for that wedding.
  There are a lot of people in the Federal Government who, when one of 
their family members, unfortunately, gets very sick and has to go in 
for an operation, want to be able to be with that loved one during that 
time of tremendous trauma. They want to be able to get to that hospital 
and not worry about not doing their job correctly at the same time. So 
they seek the opportunity of flextime, too.
  Then there are other people who work for the Federal Government who 
have children who do exciting things. Maybe they are in plays. Maybe 
they are in bands. Maybe they are good athletes and in sports. Maybe 
they are not good athletes but sit on the bench, but they like to go to 
those games, they like to go to those plays, they like to go to those 
band recitals. Maybe they are a fair distance away, so they want to 
drive them, they want to take that extra Friday afternoon and take them 
out to that event because it is a big part of their life, a big part of 
their family, and they take advantage of flextime to do that so they do 
not undermine their ability to do their job.
  Is that the 19th century way we deal with employees? What an outrage 
to make a statement like that. Maybe the Senator from New York has some 
unique view of the 19th century that says that when you give a family 
more time off to deal with family issues, that is counterproductive to 
having a strong family. Maybe we are not raising a village when we do 
that, but I sure think we are encouraging the strength of the family 
when we do that for our Federal employees.
  What are we suggesting here? We are suggesting the employer and 
employee in the private sector have the right to reach the same 
agreement that the Federal employee has with the Federal Government; 
that over a 2-week period, an employer and an employee, only with the 
consent of the employee, only under a voluntary condition, without any 
mandate, and with significant safeguards so there cannot be any 
coercion, that employee and that employer, if they decide it is to the 
benefit of both of them to allow the employee to shift their workweek 
from a 40-hour week

[[Page 23178]]

one week and a 40-hour workweek the next week to a 50- or 45-hour week 
one week and a 30- or 35-hour week the next week or something in 
between, they will have the right to do that. It does not undermine the 
40-hour workweek. It encourages more productivity, and it gives people 
more opportunity to be home, in most instances, to participate in 
important events, some of them unasked for, some undesired such as 
health issues, and some very exciting such as weddings or children 
doing special things in school. Or it may simply be a young couple who 
wants to get away a little early some week in order to enjoy the fact 
they are newly married. Or it could be any other multiple of personal 
events that might occur that causes somebody to say: I would like to 
work longer one week and less the next week so I can take advantage of 
that.
  How can the other side of the aisle, in good conscience, and with a 
straight face, come to this floor and say that is some sort of coercive 
event, that is some sort of event that undermines the right of 
individuals and the labor force of America, especially when that right 
is given to all Federal employees and many State employees? The 
exaggeration is extraordinary. The hyperbole is excessive. The policy 
they are suggesting is 19th century. They are saying: You are going to 
work 40 hours this week, and you have to work 40 hours next week, and 
no matter how much you might not want to work under that structure, you 
cannot change because we know better than you know. I, the Senator from 
New York, know better what the employees' workweek in New Hampshire 
should be like. Or the Senator from New York knows better about the 
workweek than the people of New York.
  Well, I happen to think that allowing people to develop some 
opportunities to structure their workweek so they can better care for 
their family, better assist their family's lifestyle, have a better 
quality of life--doing it all in the context of protecting the rights 
of the worker so they are not asked to work any more hours, doing it 
all in the context of a voluntary program, doing it all in the context 
of allowing the employee to make the decision, not the employer--I 
happen to think that is a pretty appropriate way to deal with 
somebody's work in relation to their lifestyle. I think that is a 21st 
century approach.
  I think the other side's proposal is a 19th century approach. Or 
maybe that is too much hyperbole. Let me just say the other side's 
approach is misguided. I think our approach gives people the type of 
flexibility--that is why it is called flextime--in which most people 
would like to have the opportunity to participate. This is a good 
proposal.
  It is especially good because it comes in the context of being the 
essence of the debate now. The Senator from Massachusetts has adjusted 
his amendment so the amount of increase in the minimum wage is 
essentially the same as the amount of the increase in Senator Enzi's 
bill. The issue of dollars relative to the wage increase is no longer a 
factor. That is no longer a factor. The only thing we are really 
debating about right now is giving small businesses some relief and 
allowing people flexibility in their workweek, which we give to all 
Federal employees, but for some reason the other side resists giving to 
people who do not work for the Federal Government and who are subject 
to the 40-hour work rules.
  So I must say, with respect to the other side, I find it disingenuous 
for them to argue that it becomes a 19th century approach to say we 
would like people who are in the private sector to have the same rights 
as people in the Federal sector. People in the private sector should 
have the same rights as people in the State sectors. People in the 
private sector should have the right of their own volition, of their 
own initiative, protected by significant laws which avoid coercion, to 
choose to work longer one week and less the next week so they can do 
things such as participate in their family's lifestyle, whether it is a 
soccer game, a wedding, or whether it would be, unfortunately, some 
medical event, or anything else that is appropriate.
  Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Wyoming is an 
excellent amendment, and in the context of the debate, it is especially 
excellent because, essentially, we are not fighting over increasing the 
minimum wage any longer in the two amendments. All we are fighting over 
is whether we are going to give small business a little more 
protection, a little more right to be productive and therefore create 
more jobs, whether we are going to give individuals the opportunity to 
have more flexibility and a better lifestyle.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my 
time, to the extent I have any, to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a question on time. How much time 
remains on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 24 minutes. The majority has 
76 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have 24 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-four minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to follow the Senator from Illinois? I ask unanimous consent 
that I can speak for 7 or 8 minutes following the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls the 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from 
Connecticut as he has requested in his request, following the Senator 
from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so recognized.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, America will not soon forget the images of 
Hurricane Katrina, some of the poorest people in our country exposed to 
the worst natural disaster in current memory. We watched that 
television screen 24/7 and saw our fellow Americans struggling to 
survive, fighting the floodwaters, trying to keep their children and 
their families together.
  America may not soon forget that image, but, sadly, many politicians 
in Washington have already forgotten. The poor people of New Orleans 
who suffered--as those who did in Mississippi and Alabama--those poor 
people were underwater long before Hurricane Katrina arrived. They were 
underwater because they were submerged by poverty. They were submerged 
by a health care system that denies them basic health care protection. 
And, yes, they were underwater because if they got up and went to work 
every single day, and worked 8 hours a day, the most they could hope 
for under Federal law is $5.15 an hour.
  It has been 8 years since we have raised the minimum wage. Senator 
Kennedy of Massachusetts has valiantly raised this issue every year, 
begging the President to come forward and stand up for those poor, 
vulnerable people in America. Today he asks for what is a modest 
increase in the Federal minimum wage: 55 cents an hour within 6 months 
of enactment, and another 55 cents an hour 1 year later.
  Not a single family with this increased minimum wage will really get 
out from under the burden of poverty. We know it. Take a look at what 
families face today. Since 2001, the price of gasoline has gone up 74 
percent. I think it is even higher. Health insurance, has gone up 59 
percent, if you are lucky enough to have it. Housing has gone up 44 
percent. College tuition has gone up 35 percent.
  Yet when we come to the floor and ask for the most basic minimum wage 
increase for the hardest working people in this country, we are told by 
the Republican side of the aisle, no. No. They have forgotten the 
images of Hurricane Katrina. If they ever experienced them, they have 
forgotten what it is like to have a limited amount of money to try to 
feed and clothe and shelter a family. Mr. President, $5.15 an hour in 
the United States of America? Why in the

[[Page 23179]]

world are we even debating this? For Senators to come to the floor and 
say: Well, we want to give employers more flexibility on overtime--do 
you know what that means? It means denying workers overtime pay.
  Do you know what their proposal is? If your employer comes to you and 
says, ``Listen, the boss says you are going to work 50 hours this week 
and 30 hours next week,'' you put them together and it is 80 hours. No 
overtime. ``I hope you enjoy a little more time with your family.'' 
Really? Fifty hours this week, 10 hours of overtime but not an extra 
penny in overtime pay. That is the Republican proposal. Great 
``flexibility.''
  One of the Senators said that gives you more time to go to soccer 
matches with your kids. Well, assuming you can afford the gasoline for 
your car to get to that soccer match, you realize in your heart of 
hearts you are making less money than you would have made trying to 
make ends meet and keep your family together.
  Let me tell you something else that troubles me, too. How many people 
are standing up on the Senate floor and talking about what is happening 
to corporate profits while workers' wages are suffering? Corporate 
profits have gone up 105 percent, while basic workers' wages have gone 
up 3.2 percent. It just tells you that when it comes to providing some 
opportunity in this country, there is plenty of opportunity for those 
with the highest levels of income. We give them the tax breaks and 
ignore the working families struggling every single day to keep it 
together.
  Senator Enzi of Wyoming is a good colleague. He and I have worked 
together on many good things, and I am happy to work with him in the 
future. I have to tell you, his amendment is a very bad idea. The Enzi 
amendment would deny to more than 10 million workers across America the 
minimum wage, overtime pay, and equal pay rights. And, sadly, it would 
be the death of the 40-hour workweek.
  In the home I grew up in, we knew that the Good Lord gave us the 
Sabbath. We knew that organized labor gave us the weekend, 
understanding that families would work hard Monday through Friday, and 
they could spend time together on Saturday and Sunday. You will see the 
end of that weekend with the Enzi amendment. You will see workers 
plunged into extra hours of work without overtime pay, for a whole 
week, and fewer hours the following week, and no overtime benefits.
  That really cuts the heart out of opportunities for families across 
America. We have to understand something very basic in this country. We 
are going to make some important decisions in the closing weeks of this 
session. Will we remember the vulnerable people who were the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina? Will we understand how many other families across 
America are underwater today because they do not have health insurance, 
they cannot afford gasoline? They are working 40 hours a week and 
cannot make ends meet. They are deep in credit card debt and cannot get 
out of it.
  For once, wouldn't it be great if the Senate came together on a 
bipartisan basis to stand up for working families? The way to do that 
is to vote for the Kennedy amendment and to oppose the Enzi amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking our colleague from 
Massachusetts for, once again, offering this amendment. As he has 
pointed out already, this is a pared-down version of what was offered 
before. It is hard to comprehend how anyone, let alone a family can 
make ends meet on $5.15 an hour. How do you pay for housing, food, 
clothes and other staples?
  I have often said--and it has been repeated by others--the best 
social program ever created was not by an act of Congress. It was not 
created by a regulation or rule. The best social program ever created 
was a job. Think of all the benefits, the intangibles, that accrue as a 
result of having a good-paying job.
  Here we are saying to people: Work hard and make only $5.15 per hour. 
You cannot even begin to provide for the basic needs of your own 
family.
  What bothers me a great deal is how things have changed here in the 
Senate. In my 24 years in the Senate, I recall with great vividness the 
real discussions we had. I won't bore my colleagues going back to the 
Roosevelt administration, although it is not insignificant to talk 
about it. But just in more recent years, the minimum wage battles were 
not battles. They were resolved in a bipartisan way. My colleague from 
Massachusetts can tell you chapter and verse how it was done.
  What has happened to us? What is wrong with this Congress, in these 
days, that we are incapable of raising the minimum wage to meet even 
the level of inflation for poor people in this country? Increasing the 
minimum wage was never a divisive battle. That was done by almost 
unanimous consent. We would work it out, come up with an amount that we 
could afford that made sense for people, and enact it.
  These are familiar examples, as shown on this chart, going back to 
the Roosevelt administration, when the minimum wage was enacted, going 
through the Clinton administration, where we were actually able to get 
those kinds of agreements between Republicans and Democrats. And here 
we are now, for the last 5 years, still battling over whether we can 
get a modest increase in the minimum wage.
  I am really stunned by it. This increase of $1.10, gets you to $6.25. 
It provides for some additional groceries and rent, 1 year of 
childcare. That would be an additional $2,288 if we adopted the Kennedy 
amendment.
  There are so many examples that can be cited about what this means 
and what people are going through. The Senator from New York raised 
this earlier. Senator Kennedy has, as well. This is that chart that 
shows where the minimum wage is. As shown here, this is the poverty 
line. The black line is the poverty line. We have been without these 
increases in the minimum wage. People are literally staggering at the 
bottom with a little more than $12,000 a year. Here is the poverty 
line.
  How do you explain to people, good people, what we are doing in this 
Congress when we cannot even get this number up even close to the 
poverty line for people to make ends meet? What has happened? This 
never was a debate that caused great friction--to talk about making 
sure people out there working hard would be able to provide for their 
family. Now, we would turn around and say: You are not even going to 
get the kind of level of support that makes it possible to make ends 
meet.
  I would hope that, No. 1, we would adopt this amendment. Let's get 
back to the days when we were able to come to agreement on something 
that would take people who are struggling and give them a chance to 
make ends meet.
  I have one more chart that highlights the importance of all of this. 
Consider what is going to happen as heating oil prices go up by more 
than 30 percent. We are talking about the minimum wage actually going 
down in excess of 8 percent in terms of its ability to help people make 
ends meet. We have the Bush economic plan that is going to have rising 
energy costs with a declining minimum wage. What in the world do we 
think people are going to do? How are they going to make ends meet? How 
does that get done? What happened to compassionate conservatism? What 
happened to the days of the first Bush administration, and the Reagan 
administration as well, when we were able to come to agreement about 
the minimum wage?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator very eloquently pointed out the fact that we 
haven't seen an increase in the minimum wage in 9 years. Inflation has 
eaten away from that $5.15 as costs and prices have gone up. Is the 
Senator aware of the increase in the minimum wage that has taken place, 
for example, in Great Britain? They have the second most successful 
economy in Europe; Ireland being No. 1. They were at $8.56 an hour. 
This year they have gone to $8.85 an hour. Next year, in October,

[[Page 23180]]

they will likely go to $9.44 an hour. From 1999 to 2003, Great Britain 
has brought more than 1.8 million children out of poverty. That is what 
has happened in another economy that says that the increase in the 
minimum wage and providing at least a living wage for individuals is 
not adverse to the economy. It is important to an economy. And most 
importantly, it has been crucial to lifting children out of poverty and 
avoiding the kinds of circumstance that we have seen after Katrina.
  Why is it that they can understand this and be so successful, and we, 
9 years later, are still on the floor of the Senate for an hour and a 
half, and I bet we will still be unwilling to provide an increase of 
$1.10 for some of the hardest working Americans?
  Mr. DODD. In response, the Senator makes a very good point. We have a 
tendency to think about raising the minimum wage as being a cost to 
society. What the Senator from Massachusetts is pointing out is quite 
the contrary. Raising the minimum wage is an overall benefit. In fact, 
the Senator is absolutely correct. In Great Britain, in fact, in no 
small measure because they have actually raised the minimum wage, the 
economy of that nation has improved. In the years since we have not 
increased the minimum wage in this country, we have watched millions 
more of our fellow citizens fall into poverty. There is a direct 
correlation. We now have some 13 million children in America living in 
poverty. What is the 21st century going to offer if we are raising a 
generation of so many of our children living in poverty? Overall, 37 
million Americans are living below the poverty level. In fact, more 
than 5 million Americans have fallen into poverty in the last 5 years. 
In Great Britain, as the Senator points out, as a result of increasing 
the minimum wage, people have actually been lifted out of poverty and 
the economy of their country has improved.
  What the Senator from Massachusetts is offering today is 
substantially less than proposals he made earlier. This increase would 
be to $6.25, if we can get it approved. We ought to come together 
around this. What a great day it would be in America for the Senate, on 
a bipartisan basis, to support this modest increase in the minimum 
wage.
  With all due respect to my good friend from Wyoming, his amendment is 
some 80 pages long. I suggest to my colleagues, in the hour you have 
left before we vote, that you read this amendment carefully. I think 
you will be stunned to discover the impact of this amendment.
  I ask my friend from Massachusetts, on page 17 of the Enzi amendment, 
correct me if I am wrong, as I read line 7, subsection 5 of this 
amendment, it says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State may 
     impose a civil penalty on a small business concern, in the 
     case of a first-time violation by the small business concern 
     of a requirement regarding collection of information under 
     Federal law, in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of 
     this subsection.

  That is a license, in my view, to go off and do anything, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law. It could wipe out all other 
Federal laws. Do my colleagues know which laws are being eliminated, 
notwithstanding any other provision of law? You could lie and cheat and 
steal. Am I reading this correctly?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. Effectively, what this does is 
preempt all 50 States from being able to enforce any of the Federal 
laws which they are mandated to enforce. I don't know where we get this 
idea. That could be on safe water, environmental, toxic substances. It 
could be on oilspills. It could be on any other matter. They preempt 
the States. Where is this idea coming from? Where did this idea come 
from? Preempt the States from any kind of enforcement, what in the 
world has that to do with an increase in the minimum wage?
  Mr. DODD. Again, we are looking at an 80 page amendment. This is only 
one provision that I happened to read quickly. Do my colleagues know 
what they are voting for? It literally could wipe out all the Federal 
laws that a State would have to protect its people. That is ridiculous. 
With all due respect, this amendment ought to be defeated.
  I know very little time remains. I urge my colleagues to consider 
this modest request to increase the minimum wage and reject the Enzi 
amendment. That amendment goes beyond raising the minimum wage and 
requires far more work than we can do in a 1-hour debate. Its 
implications may only be discovered weeks or months from now.
  This ought to be rejected if for no other reason than I don't think 
we even know all that is in it.
  I urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment and the rejection of the 
Enzi amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need. I 
probably need quite a bit because the problem with debate on the floor 
of the Senate is that we don't listen to each other. I have said a lot 
of times that in committee, we are a much more informal group when we 
are marking up things. Consequently, if there is a misunderstanding or 
a disparity, we can get together and we can talk about it and we can 
find out how people were wrong.
  I am disappointed that we haven't talked about this. A lot of these 
have been available before. But what the American people get to see is 
the 20 percent of the stuff that we will not agree on and, worse than 
that, probably 40 percent of the stuff that we don't want to listen to.
  There have been some gross misstatements here. I want to start with 
just the last one, talking about allowing people to do whatever they 
want without a fine. That is such a gross misstatement that I am really 
disappointed in the opposition. I even heard the opposition say that 
that would allow people to have oilspills. I don't know how oilspills 
fall in the category of a first-time paperwork collection. That is all 
it applies to. If a small business makes a mistake sending data to the 
Government, just data, just a form--they miss a little bit on the form 
or they miss the deadline slightly and they immediately correct it and 
it doesn't hurt anybody--that is all that provision does.
  If you are a small businessman out there trying to comply with the 
thousands of pages we have in a whole bunch of different areas, and you 
miss one paperwork deadline, you can be fined pretty severely. That is 
paperwork. That is not oilspills. That is not EPA. That is not any of 
the other things. It is data collection. That is what the amendment 
says, data collection. Read the whole amendment. If a small businessman 
misses a deadline or makes a mistake on paperwork and it is correctable 
and it is corrected immediately and it doesn't harm any employee, then 
they are not subject to the fine that time. That is a small concession 
to the small businessman, a very small concession.
  On this whole bill, I am absolutely amazed. We are talking about the 
same $1.10 increase on the Democratic side that we are talking about in 
my amendment. There is no difference. Both of them provide for a $1.10 
increase over the same period of time. We are not talking about which 
side is going to put people in poverty. Obviously, there is no 
listening from that side.
  I have to be upset when it is claimed that apparently the minimum 
wage is the reason for Katrina. You can't go that far, folks. You 
can't. There isn't a connection between the minimum wage and Katrina 
happening. There isn't. Yes, there were people involved in that tragedy 
who were at the minimum wage, just as there are people under the 
minimum wage across the whole United States. But there isn't a 
connection with Katrina. It makes nice rhetoric. That is what we tend 
to do on the floor, make rhetoric. We ought to be making policy. What I 
have here is good policy for small business.
  I also heard some statements about how all the small businessmen are 
wealthy, and they do that on the backs of employees. First, they are 
not all wealthy. Secondly, the implication that they are unethical to 
get that money is also not correct. There are

[[Page 23181]]

small businesses out there that wind up paying their employees more 
than they get, even if the employee is on the minimum wage. There is no 
guarantee for the small business owner. We have to remember that.
  I was surprised that the other side didn't say: Here is the chance to 
get the minimum wage increase and to help small business, not to harm 
employees. There is nothing in here that harms employees.
  Part of the rhetoric was, we are taking away the 40-hour workweek. 
No, we are not. We are matching Federal employees' benefits to private 
employee benefits. That is it. What the Federal employees are allowed 
to do, we say that all employees ought to be able to do. How is that 
taking away overtime? Because it doesn't take away overtime from the 
Federal employees, so it also wouldn't take away overtime from the 
private employees. There is a provision in this amendment that says 
there cannot be coercion. They talk about forcing people to work on the 
weekend. That provision says that it has to be in an agreement between 
the employer and the employee. It truly is designed to be able to get 
them in a position where, without losing any money, they can have some 
extra time at the time that they want to have it.
  I mentioned before--obviously, nobody was listening--that where this 
comes up the most is where there are Federal employees married to 
private employees. The Federal employee gets this special break where 
he or she can rearrange their schedule so that they work a little more 
one week and then they can get time off the next week without any 
penalty. But the spouse who works in the same town but for a private 
employer is told by Federal law: You can't have that benefit.
  That is wrong. Why can't we, after two decades of seeing that it 
works for the Federal Government, believe that it might work for 
private business? If it doesn't work, I would be one of the first ones 
to move to get it out of there, but it is going to work. There is no 
indication it would not work.
  I think if we sat down and talked about these proposals, there would 
be some agreement on both sides of the aisle. It has become one of 
those rhetoric things where we can appeal to the base by blasting the 
Republicans for having any kind of a proposal, such as this, that would 
help small businessmen.
  There are a lot of statements I ought to correct. One of them is 2 
pages versus 85 pages. Clearly, 85 pages versus 2 pages, but that is 
like me trying to imply they have a Federal Tax Code idea and it is 
just send your money to the Federal Government. That would not be true. 
That is what they are saying when they say 2 pages versus 85 pages.
  I have additional pages because of the provisions I have talked with 
the Democrats about and tried to nail down in a very clarified way so 
there could not be those objections. It is a few pages to do six 
different things for small business. That is not a lot. Small business 
is the one that takes the bump on this proposal. I am trying to smooth 
out the bump, not at the cost of the employee, but as a little bit of 
help to an employer. And it is offset. It is paid for. We are not 
driving up the deficit by doing any of these things, but we are 
providing a way for them to stay in business and provide an increased 
minimum wage for their employees.
  I heard a comment that there were no net new jobs in the private 
sector in the last 4\1/2\ years. Overall, it could be a true statement. 
I don't know; I have not checked it. But I do know that in the small 
business sector, there have been some huge net job increases.
  Unemployment in the United States is about the same as it was. There 
has been an increase in population. Those people have been employed. 
Where have they been employed? In small businesses. We know that big 
business lost employees. They keep downsizing. They call it 
rightsizing; I call it losing jobs. But the small business sector has 
picked up those jobs.
  There are people out there generating ideas willing to take risk. 
Anybody out there who thinks if you have a small business all you do is 
open the doors and make a lot of money is wrong. Talk to the small 
businessmen in your community. See how many of them in the middle of 
the night sit straight up in bed and say: How do I meet payroll 
tomorrow? But they do, and they solve it, and one of the ways they 
usually do that is they don't pay themselves. Later, when they make 
some more money, they may make up for what they lost in that period of 
time. But talk about no flexibility, they do not have any flexibility; 
they have to pay their employees. A lot of people who go into business 
find out it is not the cakewalk they thought it would be.
  When I was a small businessman we used to employ some extra people 
during the slow time so we would have them during the time when we 
needed them, during the back-to-school rush and the Christmas rush. We 
were always a little bit disappointed after we paid them through the 
slow times, when we were not making the money, to then have them leave 
at the busy times or be sick at the busy times. We understand sick. 
People get sick. Sometimes as an owner we were sick, but that did not 
mean we could not come to work because we had to keep the business 
running.
  Small business is different than big business. It runs on fewer 
people. That is why we call it small business. The small business 
people have to compensate different ways for themselves, meaning if 
they are short an employee, the trip they were going to take, the 
meeting they were going to go to, which could be to buy products for 
the store, is canceled because somebody has to be there to run the 
store to provide the customer service. That is how small business 
works.
  I can tell you, too, when you have a small business, the employees 
are more like family, and so they have insight into more of what is 
happening in the company than they would in a big company. In a big 
company, if they know about their own department, it is probably a big 
deal. In a small company, they know about the whole business. They 
probably do things in the whole business and they know how tentative 
the whole business is.
  Talk to some of the small businessmen in your own community. Find out 
what kind of a ``wealthy'' life they live. You will find out most of 
what they earn they have to put back into the business to keep it 
growing.
  Another significant part of what they earn they have to pay in taxes 
because the tax structure is set up so that most of what they make 
looks as though it is personal wage, and that puts them in a very high 
tax bracket and they wind up paying that out.
  Being in small business is not a cakewalk. When the Federal 
Government forces on them any new regulation, that causes problems.
  I also heard a statement that the minimum wage increase only applied 
to one-tenth of 1 percent of the national payroll. That is another myth 
I need to address, because, again, having been in business, I know that 
when the minimum wage rises, it raises all wages. If you have somebody 
else who is in a tier above the minimum wage, and you raise the minimum 
wage, you eliminate part of the tier. Nobody can do that in small 
business because everybody knows what everybody makes. So you raise 
that one and then you raise the one above that, and then you raise the 
one above that.
  We are not talking about an impact on one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
national payroll. We are not just talking about those people at the 
bottom of the ladder; we are talking about most of the people in the 
United States.
  I would like to give all of the people in the United States a pay 
raise. The problem with giving everybody a pay raise is that it has to 
be paid for. Somebody has to pay that bill. It is not like the Federal 
Government. The employer out there, particularly the small 
businessman--well, even the big businessman--cannot print their own 
money, so they cannot run deficits very long or they are out of 
business.
  How will businesses go about paying for a raise in the minimum wage? 
Let's see, you can do it by having less people; but, that is people 
losing jobs, and I don't know of a single small businessman out there 
who likes to get rid of

[[Page 23182]]

people. They feel for these people who work for them. They know these 
people who work for them. And when they lay them off, they see the hurt 
in their eyes. In small businesses, it is the little guy who has to 
look them in the eye and say: I have to have one less employee because 
I am paying others more. In some businesses, when there is a tight spot 
and the boss goes to them and says: ``Look, I have this problem, I am 
not going to be able to make wages so I am going to have to let 
somebody go'', the people in the business will often say: ``In the 
short term, we will take a little less because we understand the 
problem; we don't want you to be forced to lay off anybody.''
  That is not the option when the higher wage is mandated, there is no 
slack to get through a particularly hard time, even if it is a short 
one. We are talking about the prospect of people losing jobs. That is, 
unfortunately, one way mandated, increased wages can be paid for. For 
every businessman I know this would be the least preferable way to meet 
increased cost, but it is certainly one of the possibilities.
  Another possibility is that they can raise their prices. This almost 
certainly will happen. Essentially, if we raise most of the wages in 
the country, we are also going to raise most of the prices in the 
country just to cover the increase in the wage. If what I buy increases 
in cost, did I get a raise? Not really. So we can create these phony, 
feel-good pay increases, but if they do not increase buying power, they 
do not do anything.
  What is another way that increases in the minimum wage can be for ? I 
certainly don't like either of the two options I just noted. Another 
way to pay for wage increases is to have more productivity. We had one 
chart that showed that productivity has gone up. Some of those 
productivity gains have arisen partly because we have mechanized more. 
Unfortunately such productivity gains do not employ more people. It 
switches the way products are made and drives up productivity per 
person. But increases in productivity will help keep people around at 
higher wages.
  The employees who are out there and are being creative and are 
looking at their job and saying: ``There has to be a better way of 
doing this'', and are coming up with improved ways of doing business 
usually get rewarded. They get more money.
  I remember when I was going to college, I was taking a course in 
Fortran. One of my friends worked at the May D & F Company. He did some 
inventory work for them. This is in the old days when you had to write 
your program out by hand and then take it to a card punch operator. 
They punched the cards for you, and then you would go over the huge 
mainframe, and run cards through that. When you got them back, you had 
a bug list and you could rewrite lines so it would work. And the next 
day you get cards punched again. Eventually you get through the bugs 
and get this little simple thing done that today a child on a home 
computer could probably do in about, oh, 20 minutes. But we were amazed 
at the capacity, the productivity that this provided.
  One of my fellow students figured out in doing inventory, that 
instead of the 40-hour week he was putting in to accomplish the work, 
that he could write a program, run it through the university computer 
on class time, and do the same amount of work in 1 hour. Now here is 
where I was pleased with the company he worked for. They let him do 
that and they paid him for 40 hours. He was thrilled. He is now a 
programmer.
  What he did was increase his skill level and get paid more for it. 
That is what we are talking about here. There are a lot of people who 
start at minimum wage jobs. If they pay attention to the job, I bet 
they are not at the minimum wage, for most of them, for more than a 
month, and then they get promoted. They get a pay raise, a real pay 
raise because they did not force the price up, they increased their 
productivity.
  I mentioned this morning that there is a fellow in Cheyenne, WY, who 
owns eight McDonald's. Some people try to suggest that working in food 
service is a bad job, and we kind of run them down. We should never run 
down any job that people do with their hands.
  If you are like that small businessman--and I contend most small 
businessmen are that way--not trying to take advantage of their 
employees, but trying to help their employees, these employees can go 
through a program and get not only a lot of increases in position, but 
they can actually own a McDonald's--that's right, own it. The 
McDonald's owner I referred to this morning has had three employees who 
started at minimum wage and who today own 20 McDonald's. That is the 
achievement of the American dream.
  They did not achieve what they did because of the minimum wage. They 
achieved this success and advancement because they increased their 
skill level. That is the key. We have programs that help people 
increase their skill level. I would be willing to bet that the Federal 
programs to increase skill level are minimal compared to the business 
efforts to increase the skill level of their employees. That is how 
employers increase and improve their business. They help their 
employees. They do not beat up on their employees. They help their 
employees.
  The smaller the business, I am willing to bet, the more they help 
their employees. That is what we are talking about here--helping the 
employees, helping them get higher skill levels.
  We do have a Federal program--and I am hoping we can get it through 
the Senate by unanimous consent or even with some limited debate, 
whatever it takes and whatever will fit in this packed schedule between 
now and Thanksgiving . There is some important legislation we need to 
do. One of them is passing the Workforce Investment Act.
  The Workforce Investment Act will provide for about 900,000 people a 
year--a year--to be trained in higher skilled jobs.
  That can be people who are unemployed or people who are employed but 
trained to higher skilled jobs. I also would like to put in a little 
plug for Wyoming at this point. We are short of people. We are the 
least populated State in the Nation. Previously, one of the reasons has 
been we did not have jobs. Now we have jobs. We do not have people to 
operate them. So we have started some special training programs in my 
state so people can work in some of the mines. One might say, Oh, I do 
not want to be in a mine. Mines are dirty and unsafe places. I want 
everyone to take a look at the record because there are rules with 
which they have to comply.
  I once had a fellow from Japan, who worked for a newspaper, who was 
fascinated that I did not do national media, I guess, and he wondered 
if he could follow me for a day. I said he could follow me for a day if 
he came to Wyoming and followed me for a day. His paper let him do 
that. I also invited him to visit a mine.
  He came, and we did one of our normal weekend things my wife and I do 
in Wyoming. We go back to Wyoming most weekends and we travel a 
different part of Wyoming. We hit all the towns, no matter what size. 
On that particular trip, we went to Wright, WY, Midwest, Edgerton, 
Kaycee, and Buffalo, and we held town meetings. I met with schoolkids 
and businessmen in those places.
  I remember the first town that we were in. I think I got to talk to 
115 kids at the school. I talked to about 30 businessmen. I had about 
40 people show up for a town meeting.
  He said: You do not get to meet with many people.
  I said: Take a look at the little brochure I gave you that outlined 
where we were going today and what the populations were.
  He said: My goodness, you got to talk to 90 percent of the people.
  I said: What size building would that take in Tokyo?
  One advantage of being in Wyoming is we get to talk to most of the 
citizens.
  The next day, I did not go with him, but he went to one of our coal 
mines. We have 14 coal mines in Campbell County. I hope people will 
come out and take a look at them. If you are

[[Page 23183]]

using electricity, there is a good chance that you are using 
electricity from the coal mined in Campbell County, WY. It supplies a 
third of the coal in the Nation because it is considered clean coal. It 
does not have a lot of the chemicals in it. We send some to West 
Virginia. We send some to Kentucky. We send it to most States. In those 
States, they mix it with their coal, and they meet the clean air 
standards. That is one of the reasons we mine so much coal.
  He went through the mine, took a look at it, and looked at their 
safety record. I was very pleased when I saw what he had written, which 
was that he believed Wyoming had participatory democracy. Most States 
cannot do that because of the bigger populations. On the coal mining, 
he said he expected it to be dirty and unsafe. He found that it was 
clean and safe.
  Now, here is the real telling part of this story. The next year, he 
brought his family to Wyoming. In Wyoming, we have Yellowstone Park, 
the Grand Tetons National Park. We have the first national forest. We 
have the first national monument, Devil's Tower. He brought his family 
to see the little towns he had visited and how far apart they were. He 
brought them to a coal mine because he was impressed.
  So come out and work in our coal mines. You can make $50,000 $60,000, 
$70,000, $80,000 a year.
  For women, that would probably be a nontraditional job, but there are 
a lot of women working in the mines. One of the reasons they can is 
because it is all huge heavy equipment that has all kinds of things on 
it that are ergonomic and that make it easy to operate. A woman can 
drive a coal truck that I guess two of these trucks might fit in this 
chamber, but I doubt it. The wheels on those things are about 18 feet 
tall, which means they are 18 feet in diameter. It might fit in the 
room this way. It is huge equipment. One would be fascinated to see it. 
Women drive those, and they make the same wage as men. Of course, that 
is a Federal law, and it ought to be. That helps to get rid of some of 
those disparities we have between what women make and men make. 
Sometimes it is taking nontraditional jobs like that. These are good-
paying jobs.
  They used to be able to put out an application and then select from 
those people who had experience on that kind of heavy equipment. They 
could select the best operator for that piece of equipment. The world 
is changing. There are fewer people out there to take those jobs, so 
they now will train someone to run this heavy equipment with no 
experience.
  There is one little catch for some people, and that is that they have 
to have a clean drug record. They have to be able to pass a drug test 
because they do not want people running over somebody with this huge 
piece of equipment.
  We have some of those mines that have gone 2, 3, 4 years without a 
lost-time accident. No lost-time accident, let alone a death. How safe 
is that? Safer than most of the businesses in the United States.
  Like I say, this equipment is designed so that it is easy to operate, 
it is air-conditioned. The person is inside the whole day. And they are 
having trouble getting employees at $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 
a year.
  We have a special training center in Casper, WY, for people who want 
to work in the oil industry. They will take completely untrained people 
and train them to work in the oil fields and have 100 percent placement 
on the people who graduate from there. Again, the only catch is a clean 
drug record, they must be able to pass a drug test. It is a good 
living.
  I am making the point that skills are important. If one does not have 
the skills, there are ways to get the skills.
  The only people who are poor are the people who do not have hope. 
Now, that is a quote from ``The World Is Flat'' by Thomas Friedman. The 
only people who are poor are the people who do not have hope. In the 
United States, everyone should have hope. Everyone should be able to 
find some way to increase their skill level and get a better job.
  When I make those trips around Wyoming, I go to a lot of schools. I 
talk to a lot of kids. They are making choices down in first and second 
grade about what is going to happen to their employment capability. I 
am very pleased with the Wyoming kids. I believe they do an outstanding 
job. I have had an opportunity to work with some of the kids in the 
District. The first year I was here, the school board learned when the 
first day of school opened that the roofs leaked. I do not think that 
was a good time for the school board to figure that out, but that is 
what happened. They decided that since the high school students did not 
have anyplace to go to school, that maybe we could take them as interns 
on the Hill.
  I agreed to take some. The first young lady I talked to, I said: What 
do you want to be? She said: I want to be a doctor. I was pleased. This 
is a ninth grader. She has her goal set on being a doctor. I found out 
later that day that she could not read. Now, what does one think the 
chances are of a ninth grader ever being a doctor if they can't read? 
It is not going to happen probably. Well, instead of her working in my 
office, I sent her to a literacy class. When we finished the 
internship, I offered to pay her to go to the literacy class. She never 
showed up. So I am pretty sure she is not a doctor anywhere.
  Kids are making choices about what they can do with the decisions 
they make. I am hoping they make good decisions. I am hoping they get 
into science and math and work those skills through and make some good 
decisions as they get into high school to learn where their talents 
lie.
  I have had a person on my staff ever since I got here. Her name is 
Katherine McGuire. She used to be my legislative director. Now she 
directs a committee I am on. Her college degree was in agriculture. Her 
parents did not have a ranch, so I was not sure about that. Then she 
went on to get a master's degree in agricultural economics. I asked her 
how that happened. She said: I got some really good advice when I was 
early in high school from a teacher who said, Every one of you kids 
ought to have something you can do with your hands because you can 
always fall back on that. She took that advice. She looked at the 
agricultural field. She got a degree in that, and then she got an 
agricultural economics degree. She still has that fallback position. It 
is important for kids in the country to be thinking about things like 
that.
  There is not any job in the United States that is not needed. Some of 
the ones that are hands-on are going to be the most needed. The way the 
economy should work, those should be some of the highest paid.
  I am reminded of a fellow who came to solve a little problem in a 
house where they were having a pipe leak. He climbed under the sink and 
worked for about 5 minutes and had it fixed.
  When he got ready to leave, he said: That will be $75.
  The owner of the home said: Seventy-five dollars? You only worked on 
that for 5 minutes.
  He said: Actually, for my time, I only charged you a nickel. The rest 
of that is for the knowledge I had of how to change that pipe.
  So knowledge is worth something. Skills are worth something. Skills 
are the way one gets higher wages. We can impose any kind of a minimum 
wage, and what we do is drive up wages so that there has to be more 
money to cover that wage, which will probably come from higher prices, 
which wipe out the benefit of the wage.
  Another argument that has been made, which I will refute, is that 
this amendment is taking away overtime. There is no overtime taken away 
in this. We have flextime in it. Again, I want to repeat, that is the 
same benefit the Federal Government employees get, and we are just 
extending exactly the same thing to private employees. If there is 
anybody in this place who thinks we are taking away from overtime, we 
should not have given the Federal employees that disadvantage. Of 
course it is not a disadvantage. They do not get overtime taken away 
from them. They get to rearrange their schedule so that it helps them 
in times they want to take off.

[[Page 23184]]

  It does have to be done in conjunction with the employer. The 
employee and the employer have to agree. Right now, even if the 
employee and the employer agree, in the private sector, it is illegal. 
In the public sector, it is fine. So why would we object to extending 
to those small businessmen and particularly the people who work for 
them the same opportunity a Federal employee has?
  That covers a few of the misconceptions that I think we got from 
listening to the last hour and a half of rhetoric about this issue. I 
am kind of surprised that they have not adopted this amendment and 
taken credit with the small business community for helping out small 
businesses while they get the $1.10 increase in minimum wage that both 
of us are talking about. Both bills have the $1.10, the same amount of 
raise, the same time period. So all we are talking about is whether, in 
addition to giving small businesses help, we also help the small 
businesses to be able to afford it, be able to put some cushion in 
there so they can pay this increase in the minimum wage and the 
increase that will go to all of their other employees because one does 
not just raise the bottom wage; it forces the next tier up to get a 
raise and the tier above that to get a raise. So virtually everybody is 
getting a raise. I know I always had to do that when I was in business. 
I do not know of any other employer who is not faced with the same 
situation. So we are not just talking about that minimum wage earner, 
we are talking about many more people.
  Let me run through the six basic things we are providing. The first 
one is updating the small business exemption. Small business generates 
70 percent of new jobs. Right now, the small business exemption covers 
businesses that gross less than half a million dollars. When was that 
law put into effect? It was in 1960. There has been no update or change 
since that time. Has there been any inflation during that amount of 
time? I think so. In fact, if we were doing the adjustment according to 
wages, that would be over $1.5 million--not half a million but $1.5 
million. So what did I do? I compromised on that one. I should have 
gone for the whole $1.5 million. If I hadn't thought the other side of 
the aisle was going to be upset over adjusting to inflation, I would 
have gone the whole $1.5 million, but I did not. I tried to be 
reasonable on this one. I went in between the two. Like I say, it has 
been awhile since we readjusted that threshold and the economy has 
undergone some dramatic shifts and the way work has been done in this 
country has changed forever.
  My amendment also incorporates some bipartisan technical corrections 
that were originally proposed in 1990 by the then Small Business 
Committee chairman. This is very important. The Senate at that time had 
a majority of Democrats, so the Small Business Committee chairman was a 
Democrat. That chairman was Dale Bumpers, who was in the Senate when I 
got here.
  The same thing was cosponsored over the years by Senator Reid of 
Nevada, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator 
Mikulski of Maryland, Senator Baucus of Montana, and Senator Kohl of 
Wisconsin.
  There were many others, too. All that I named were the Democrats who 
thought that these technical corrections could be useful to small 
business. So I hope those Senators who are still here would vote for 
that.
  As those Senators can attest, the Department of Labor disregarded the 
will of Congress and interpreted the existing small business threshold 
to have little or no meaning. The Department is misreading the clear 
language of the statute. This amendment corrects the problem by stating 
clearly that the wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act apply to employees working for enterprises engaged in 
commerce or engaged in production of goods for commerce.
  My amendment also applies these wage-and-hour worker safeguards to 
homework situations. That is very important.
  The second thing it does is ensure procedural fairness for small 
business. That is just commonsense, good Government legislation. 
Surely, we can all agree that small business owners, the individuals 
who do the most to drive the economy forward, deserve a break the first 
time they make an honest paperwork mistake; a first-time, honest, 
paperwork mistake, where no one is hurt and the mistake is corrected. 
That is very limited.
  The paperwork small businesses face is certainly not limited. 
Paperwork is practically unlimited for a small businessman. But this 
amendment is very limited. Small business owners have told me over and 
over again how hard they try to comply with all the rules and 
regulations imposed on them, mostly by the Federal Government. As a 
former owner of a small business, I know what they mean. Because I did 
accounting for small businesses, I know what they mean. I filled out a 
lot of that paperwork. I want you to know I got it right. I didn't have 
any first-time violations. But that is because I was supposed to know 
about the kind of paperwork that I was doing, and I was being paid for 
taking care of that. It is one way a small businessman can have a 
specialist--they can hire an accountant to do some of the paperwork for 
them. But for the most part, they do their own paperwork.
  Yet for all that work, a Government inspector can fine a small 
business owner for paperwork violations alone, even if the business has 
a completely spotless record and the employer immediately corrects the 
unintentional mistake. Even the best intentioned employer can get 
caught in the myriad of burdensome paperwork requirements imposed on 
them by the Federal Government. The owners of small businesses are not 
asking to be excused from any obligations or regulations--although they 
would probably like for us to do that, and it wouldn't hurt for us to 
have a commission that would review all those things and see if anybody 
actually uses the paperwork that is required.
  One of the forms I used to get to work on was an annual OSHA report. 
Annually, they had to fill out a form that showed what accidents had 
occurred--lost-time accidents--and they had to post that in the break 
room and they had to file it with the Federal Government.
  Any time you have an accident or a near miss, it is good to sit down 
and talk to your employees about it, have them sit down and figure out 
how it could have been avoided. That will save accidents and lives. It 
isn't the paperwork that saves the accidents and lives, it is actually 
talking about it, timely talking about it, not a report that is filled 
out at the end of the year and stuck up on the bulletin board where 
people may or may not read it.
  Incidentally, I hope everybody will take a look at that form because 
it is not that readable. It is not that useful. It could be a lot more 
useful. It actually could help prevent accidents. It doesn't.
  It gets sent to the Federal Government. What do you think happens to 
that form? Nothing useful. There could be a good use for it. We 
actually could compile that and find out, in the different industries, 
what sorts of things were happening and share that with those 
industries. We do not do that. That is a wasted piece of paper. But if 
you do not send it the first year you are in business and you have been 
working like crazy to meet payroll and January 31 comes around and it 
is about the third of February and somebody says, Did you send in that 
OSHA report? Actually, I think that one goes the end of February, so it 
is the 1st or 2nd of March. They say, Did you send that in?
  Oh, no, I didn't.
  He can be fined for that, even though on the 4th of March he fills 
out the paperwork, posts it in the break room and sends it in and has, 
during this whole year, been recording all of the accidents in a 
readable form, talking to his employees about it, and solving the 
problem.
  Why should he be fined for that? Nobody is going to use it. But that 
is the kind of paperwork violations we are talking about. Remember, it 
is a Government inspector fining a small business owner for paperwork 
violations

[[Page 23185]]

alone--paperwork violations alone, not the oilspills that you heard 
about earlier. That would not be a paperwork violation. That would be a 
most definite violation, outside of paperwork. So they have to have a 
paperwork violation alone and the business has to have a completely 
spotless record and the employer has to immediately correct the 
unintentional mistake.
  Surely we ought to be able to give small business owners who are 
trying their best a break on mistakes that don't hurt anyone. Even the 
best intentioned employer can get caught in that myriad of paperwork 
requirements.
  They are not asking to be excused. What they are asking for is a 
break, if they have previously complied, they didn't hurt anybody, have 
a completely spotless record, and they correct for the unintentional 
mistake.
  One small businessman who I had testify before my committee a few 
years ago when I was working on some of the OSHA things and I was a 
subcommittee chairman of the Workforce Safety and Training Subcommittee 
of this same committee, he told Congress:

       No matter how hard you try to make your business safe for 
     your employees, customers, neighbors and family members, in 
     the end, if a Government inspector wants you they can get 
     you. The Government cannot tell me that they care more for my 
     family's safety and my company's reputation than I do.

  Small businessmen and women who are the first-time violators of 
paperwork regulations that don't hurt anyone deserve a break.
  Let's talk about providing some regulatory relief for small business. 
You can see these are not costly things I am talking about here. They 
should not be controversial. They are pretty common sense. I think we 
could sit down and draft a bill and probably agree on a lot of this 
still if we had not polarized ourselves on the floor of the Senate 
first. It is one of the worst things we do, polarize things instead of 
work them out. If we try to work them out, we can probably come to 
agreement on 80 percent of the issues. That is usually what we can do 
when we work things out together.
  The third thing my amendment would do is provide regulatory relief 
for small businesses. Any increase in the minimum wage places burdens 
on small employers. It is only fair that we simultaneously address the 
ongoing problem of agencies not fully complying with the congressional 
directive that is contained within the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act. Under the law, agencies are required to 
publish Small Entity Compliance Guides for those rules that require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis. Unfortunately, agencies have either 
ignored this requirement or, when they try to comply, they have not 
done so fully or carefully. My amendment addresses this lapse by 
including specific revisions that the Government Accountability Office 
has suggested to improve the clarity of the Compliance Guides.
  The Government Accountability Office suggested that we should clarify 
the requirements; not change them, clarify them. It would force the 
Federal agencies to take into consideration the ways that they are 
harming small business by placing non-commonsense, confusing rules and 
regulations on them. It is a chance for the small businessman to say: 
If you impose that, I don't see where it goes anywhere. I don't see 
where it does anything. Why would you impose that on me?
  It is an opportunity for small businesses to respond when the Federal 
Government is about to change the way they do their business. And it is 
a law that we passed. Congress said: You have to do this. You cannot 
affect small businesses without listening to them.
  I ought to rephrase that. You can't affect small business unless you 
present them an opportunity to speak. There is no requirement that the 
Federal Government listen. No matter what the small businessman says, 
the agency that is affecting small business does not have to listen. 
They have to accept the comments. But, currently, that law is not clear 
enough that they even accept the comments.
  I have seen some documents that small business people have sent in to 
the Federal Government about a problem with a law or regulation that 
they were trying to comply with. The response they got was, ``No 
response necessary.''
  I have no idea why ``no response necessary'' is a response. That 
doesn't answer the question. Of course one of our problems is one-size-
fits-all Government. We think we can sit in Washington and figure out a 
rule that will apply to the whole country and to every kind of a 
business out there and every kind of a job that is out there. That is 
egotism at its highest, I think. The businesses that are out there have 
constructive comments to offer about ways to do things better. But you 
know what? We don't let them contribute.
  We vote on a lot of legislation that affects small businesses, and it 
is only right that they have some opportunity to express their thoughts 
on how that is going to affect them and in many cases to suggest a 
better idea.
  One of the reasons I go back to Wyoming most weekends is so that I 
can go around and talk to those people who are doing real jobs. Often, 
when I talk to them, they say: ``I have got this little Federal 
requirement that I have to meet and I don't understand it.'' Often, I 
don't understand it either. But what I like to say is: ``What do you 
think we ought to do about that?'' By golly, you wouldn't believe some 
of the commonsense, simple things they suggest that would achieve the 
same Federal principle in a less complicated, straight-forward way. 
Often, the problem arises because we don't talk about the issue with 
the people who are actually doing the work out there. There are a lot 
of people out there doing a good job, working hard, and trying to 
figure out what in the heck it is we did in Washington. This is one 
small place where they are supposed to have input. We said: ``You are 
supposed to get input.'' Actually, I would like for them to say not 
only that you get input, but that the Federal Government has to listen 
as well. That should be the goal.
  Let me move on to another one of the six small things that my 
amendment calls for.
  My amendment seeks removal of the barriers to flexible time 
arrangements in the workplace. I have covered this a couple of times. I 
need to cover it a couple more times because obviously the other side 
of the aisle doesn't understand what I am talking about yet. I will try 
it yet a different way.
  What we are talking about is legislation that could have a monumental 
impact on the lives of thousands of working men and women and families 
in America. The legislation would give employees greater flexibility in 
meeting and balancing the demands of working families. The demand for 
family time is evident. Let me share with you some of the latest 
statistics: Seventy percent of employees do not think there is a 
healthy balance between their work and their personal life. Seventy 
percent of employees say the family is their most important priority. 
The family time provision in my amendment addresses these concerns head 
on. It gives the employee the option of flexing their schedules over a 
2-week period. In other words, employees would have 10 flexible hours 
they could work in 1 week in order to take 10 hours off in the next 
week.
  Flexible work arrangements have long been available for employees of 
the Federal Government. Government employees have been able to do this 
for two decades, and no one has said: ``You took away the overtime 
right of Federal employees''.
  The flex time program was so successful that in 1994 President 
Clinton issued an Executive Order extending it to the parts of the 
Federal Government that had not yet had the benefit for the program. 
That wasn't a Republican idea then. It might have been in the 
beginning. But none of these things matter whether they are Republican 
ideas or Democratic ideas.
  It was a Democratic President who extended that benefit to all of the 
Federal Government and said:

       Broad use of the flexible arrangement enables Federal 
     employees to better balance their work and family 
     responsibilities and increase employee effectiveness and job 
     satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.


[[Page 23186]]


  That sounds pretty good to me. However, while employees in the 
Federal Government have these rights, employees working for a small 
company in Wyoming don't have the same rights. They may be married to 
somebody in the Federal Government who has these rights and can 
rearrange their schedule to do things. But the spouse in the private 
sector and the employer in the private sector are not allowed to make a 
similar arrangement. That shouldn't ever happen in America. For years, 
Federal government employees have had these rights--rights that were 
extended by a Democrat President of the United States who noted: These 
arrangements work, reduce turnover, and reduce absenteeism. How can you 
provide these rights to Federal employees and not allow other people 
the very same right?
  I have heard some arguments that with flexible time arrangements 
employees in the private sector would be forced to do things such as 
work on a weekend. That is not correct. The bill specifically prohibits 
any coercion in making these flex time agreements. It has to be a 
mutual agreement between the employee and the employer.
  Unlike the Federal Government, there are businesses out there that do 
work on weekends. There are people out there who would like to be able 
to shift their schedule one week to the next without losing their pay, 
without having to take a day off, and they are willing to do that by 
working a little bit more in one week and a little less in the next 
week and having the funds they anticipated, similar to Federal 
employees.
  I don't understand how we can say that is wrong.
  I couldn't agree more with former President Clinton. I did not agree 
with him a lot, but that is one of the things he had right. Now we need 
to go further and extend this privilege to the private sector workers.
  We know this legislation is not a total solution. We know there are 
many other provisions under this 65-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act 
that need our attention. But the flexible time provision is an 
important part of the solution. It gives employees a choice, the same 
choice as Federal workers. If we are going to keep that from applying 
to the private sector, maybe we ought to take that away from the 
Federal employees so they can get their full rights.
  Does anyone on the other side of the aisle really want to do that? Do 
you want to see a revolution? It is the kind of revolution that small 
business employees may soon provide as well, as they become aware that 
they have been denied this benefit.
  Mr. President, what is the remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Wyoming has 18 
minutes; the Senator from Massachusetts has 6 minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you. I still have two provisions that I need to run 
through, and I wanted to make sure I got underway on that before my 
time expires.
  The fifth provision in my amendment is extending the restaurant 
employee tip credit. The food service industry relies on what is called 
a tip credit, which allows an employer to apply a portion of an 
employee's tip income--income they are getting on the job--against the 
employer's obligation to pay the minimum wage.
  To protect the tipped employees, current law requires that a tip 
credit cannot reduce an employee's wages below the required minimum 
wage. Employees report tips to the employer because the employer has to 
report it. Tips that are earned are reported.
  We have a few States that do not allow a tip credit. Increases in the 
Federal minimum wage would require raises for all affected employees in 
all States. Lack of a tip credit in some States could result in 
employers having to give raises to what are often are their most highly 
compensated employees--the tipped staff. As a result the nontipped 
employees are negatively impacted by the mandated flow of scarce labor 
dollars to the tip positions. In addition, the employers in these 
States are put at a competitive disadvantage with their colleagues and 
the rest of the country that can allocate employee compensation in a 
more equitable manner.
  I must also note that my amendment clarifies that the tip credit 
provision does not apply all parts of a State wage law. That argument 
that was used the last time the tip credit was brought up. That is 
clarified in this amendment. That should not be an argument anymore. 
The tip credit provision applies only in States that do not have a tip 
credit; and, only to the minimum wage portion of that State's overall 
wage hour law.
  The sixth and final provision in my amendment is one which provides 
small business tax relief. As I noted before, some of the people who 
pay the most taxes in the United States are small business owners. Even 
the money that business owners put back into the business to reinvest 
has to have the taxes paid on it. That is at the highest tax rate in 
the country. If we are going to impose even greater burdens on small 
businesses, we should give them some tax relief at the same time.
  My amendment would extend small business expensing. It would simplify 
cash accounting methods that make it a little easier for them to do 
their accounting, and it would provide restaurant depreciation relief.
  All of these tax provisions are fully offset. In total, the 
additional provisions of my amendment are intended to mitigate the 
small business impact of a $1.10 increase in the minimum wage.
  These steps are a partial way in which the cost of a minimum wage 
increase can be addressed. They will help the businesses that must 
absorb these increased costs. I share the view of many of my colleagues 
regarding such an increase on the Federal level. We must do our best to 
soften the blow. This may be the best means to that end.
  I would also encourage all of my colleagues to look at the true root 
of the problem of minimum wage workers, and that is minimum skills. We 
all share the same goal--I don't think anybody can deny that--and that 
is to help American workers find and keep well-paying jobs. I am even 
going beyond that. I hope they get to own their own businesses. We 
must, however, realize that minimum skills--not minimum wages--is the 
problem. Education and training will solve that problem and lead to the 
kind of increased wages and better jobs we all want to create for the 
Nation's workers.
  Let us work together to get that Workforce Investment Act passed, and 
go to conference. We didn't get that done 2 years ago. Without the 
conference, those 900,000 people a year that could be getting paid a 
higher amount are not. We need to get it passed and get it conferenced. 
We need to get the President to sign it, and as a result, higher skills 
and training will be accelerated, and wages in this country will go up.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy and support my amendment that raises the wage by the same 
amount, but then has additional provisions, that provides small 
business benefits and soften the impact of the increases on the 
businesses that will have to pay them. If you are interested in small 
business, you need to support my amendment.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will use 3 minutes now.
  I have listened to my good friend talk about the fact that Government 
workers have some flextime and small businesses don't. Of course, the 
principal answer is that many of the Government employees have 
protections. They have the Federation of Government Employees, they 
have the Treasury Employees Union. AFSCME protects a great number of 
them. They have different collective bargaining benefits. Their 
interests can be protected. That is completely different from the 
current situation.

[[Page 23187]]

  Second, the Senator from Wyoming points out the pressures on small 
business.
  Look at this. States with higher minimum wages have more jobs in 
small businesses. This is the Commerce Department. This isn't just 
general rhetoric. This is the Commerce Department. From 1998 to 2001, 
10 States and Washington, DC, with minimum wages higher than $5.15, had 
an employment rate of 4.8 percent. In the 40 States with minimum wage 
at $5.15, it was 3.3 percent.
  This is the answer. We have seen it with the employment growth, that 
is, with the small businesses, which responds to the Senator's point 
with regard to small business. States with higher minimum wages add 
more retail jobs. Employment growth between January 1998 to 2004: 11 
States and Washington, DC, with minimum wages higher than $5.15, a 
growth of 6.1 percent; 39 States with $5.15, 1.9 percent.
  The fact is we are talking about fairness. We had a wonderful 
exposition. I am always delighted to hear from my friend from Wyoming. 
I always value it and I always learn something. But I didn't learn much 
about the minimum wage today. We are talking about the fact that every 
other time we have had a successful increase in the minimum wage, we 
have expanded the coverage, except with the proposal we will have on 
the floor of the Senate this afternoon with the Enzi proposal, which 
will actually reduce the total numbers of people who are covered.
  Let's get back to what this issue is all about. This issue is about 
fairness, about the fact in 9 years we have not increased the minimum 
wage. We have increased Members' salaries in here. I didn't hear those 
who are opposed to our increase in the minimum wage out here speaking 
against the increase in Members' salaries. We have increased them 8 
times for a total of $28,000. We have not hesitated to increase our 
salaries, but now we are not going to increase the minimum wage for 
working men and women who have not seen an increase in 9 years?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold my remaining 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 12 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ENZI. Notify me when I have 3 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
  Mr. ENZI. I will go through the GOP alternatives again. They ought to 
be bipartisan alternatives. I am afraid in previous discussions they 
got polarized in spite of changes to the extent that some god policy 
initiatives that deserve bipartisan support will never have support 
from the other side. That would be a tragedy.
  When the opposition says that my amendment does not have a minimum 
wage increase, I wonder what bill he is looking at. My bill has a $1.10 
increase over the same period of time as his, although I think he is 
going to make a small change to his bill because there is a slight 
paperwork problem--but since it is the first-time paperwork problem it 
probably ought to be forgiven, just like my proposal would forgive 
small business first-time paperwork errors.
  What we are talking about is six provisions that soften the blow of 
the increased mandate on small businesses. First, permit family 
flextime for workers. Employees have the option of flexing their 
schedules over a 2-week period so they can work more hours 1 week and 
take hours off the next. The argument we have heard is that we are 
cutting overtime pay.
  If flextime is a pay cut, then Senator Kennedy and many of the Senate 
Democrats have voted to inflict pay cuts on workers. If flextime is 
wrong, then so was former President Clinton in 1994 when he extended it 
to all Federal employees because it increased effectiveness and job 
satisfaction and decreased turnover rates and absenteeism, the same 
thing it will do in the private sector. Why cannot somebody married to 
a Federal employee have the same advantage the Federal employee has?
  Second, it would increase small business exemptions from the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. We have had, since the 1960s, the small business 
exemption has applied to businesses with $500,000 in receipts. This 
exemption amount has lagged behind inflation. The small business 
exemption should be at about $1.5 million. We are only raising it to $1 
million.
  Every Federal labor law has a small business threshold. To the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, it was 15 employees. For the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, the threshold is 50 employees. Proponents minimum wage 
increases assert it is necessary to adjust the minimum wage to account 
for inflation. For the same reason, it only makes sense to adjust a 
small business threshold as well.
  The real value adjusted for inflation of the small business exemption 
established in the 1960s exceeds $1.5 million. Senator Kennedy uses his 
benchmark as the minimum wage rate for the same era. The Republican 
proposal is restrained and reasonable.
  The third issue is relief for small business, one-time paperwork 
errors. Small business people making paperwork errors would receive an 
automatic forgiveness for the first mistake in paperwork matters. It 
applies only to routine administrative paperwork requirements imposed 
on small business by the Federal Government. This is commonsense 
protection for small businesses from the otherwise ``gotcha'' mentality 
of Government inspectors and only applies to businesses with spotless 
records who immediately correct the unintentional mistakes. My 
amendment also gives small businesses regulatory relief by increasing 
federal agencies compliance, review, and enforcement of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It requires better 
compliance assistance for small businesses. Federal Government 
officials have given too often short shrift to the existing requirement 
to solicit public compliance guidelines. The Republican package 
includes specific provisions that the Government Accounting Office 
suggested to improve the clarity of these requirements.
  Another provision of my amendment relates to the minimum wage tip 
credit for restaurant workers. This is so the restaurant can be sure 
all employees are being treated fairly, not just the high tip 
employees.
  We also have small business tax relief in the form of simplified cash 
accounting methods for small businesses. It will mean they do not have 
to see accountants as often. As an accountant, I think that is a good 
idea.
  It gives quicker depreciation for restaurants, who are a major 
employer for low skilled workers, and all of the tax provisions are 
fully offset.
  The very modest tax cuts were targeted directly to businesses most 
likely to have minimum wage workers. Remember that in spite of the 
rhetoric, this amendment increases the minimum wage in the same amount 
and on the same dates that Senator Kennedy's two-page proposal does. 
The difference is that my amendment attempts to smooth some of the 
bumps for those employers who will be most adversely affected by the 
increase.
  These tax benefits will help small businesses that employ low-skills 
workers survive without drastic cuts in employment. We are trying to 
help the small business so that they will be able to afford the 
increase in the minimum wage. It is not an easy thing to come to the 
Senate and ask for a minimum wage increase. I am sure Senator Kennedy 
knows that. He has been working on it a long time. I appreciate he 
dropped it back to what the Republicans were asking for earlier and 
what we have in my proposal at the present time.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. President, we have had a good discussion. We did not have a 
chance to go through this excellent book, ``Raising the Floor,'' with 
these heartrending stories happening in America

[[Page 23188]]

every single day. Their recommendation? Increasing the minimum wage, 
ending poverty as we know it. It talks about increasing the minimum 
wage.
  I didn't have the chance to go through ``Communities in Crisis,'' the 
excellent survey about the increase in hunger in the United States of 
America. The one thing we know how to do in this country is grow crops. 
The second thing we know how to do is deliver them. We know how to 
deliver product. But the explosion in the numbers of hungry in this 
country, particularly among children--there is an increasing number of 
homeless in our society, in all parts of our society. Talk to the 
various church groups about what is happening in every part of our 
Nation.
  This is not going to be the sole answer to it, but we have not 
increased the minimum wage in 9 years. We have reached out to the 
Republicans. We have accepted their figure of $1.10 over 2 years. Our 
amendment is two pages long. Senator Enzi's amendment, with all 
respect, is 87 pages and includes all kinds of things.
  We believe this is the time. Fairness demands this. The American 
people understand fairness. We are talking about men and women who work 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year. These are hard-working men and 
women who have a sense of pride and dignity in their work. They work 
hard, they try to provide for their children, they work one, two, or 
three jobs. We have not increased the minimum wage now for 9 years. 
Prior to that time--the 50 years before this--it was bipartisan. 
President Bush 1 signed an increase in the minimum wage, Jerry Ford, 
President Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and now we have been 9 years 
without this kind of increase.
  This demands fairness. It demands we give hard-working Americans, 
those at the lower end of the economic ladder, on the first rung of the 
economic ladder, working hard, an increase.
  I remind all of our colleagues of that extraordinary Newsweek cover 
talking about the other America. It talks about the problems of hunger, 
the problems of homelessness, and the problems of people being left out 
and left behind. We can make a downpayment with an increase in the 
minimum wage. I hope we will do it this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                Amendment No. 2063, as Further Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. I have a consent request for a technical modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2063), as further modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) 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:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.70 an hour, beginning 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and 
     Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.
       ``(B) $6.25 an hour, beginning 12 months after that date.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. ENZI. I rise to summarize my comments regarding the amendments 
and to urge my colleagues to cast a vote against the Kennedy amendment 
and in favor of the minimum wage amendment I have offered.
  What is before the Senate are two amendments that raise the minimum 
wage by the same amount, $1.10 over 18 months. The difference between 
the bills is that the Kennedy amendment, while raising the minimum wage 
the same amount as my amendment, fails to acknowledge that any raise in 
the minimum wage has some negative consequences on the employers, 
particularly small employers, who must find the means to pay for the 
increase. The fact is that a negative economic impact on a small 
employer will probably result in a negative impact on that small 
employer's employees. This is an important aspect. When you give a pay 
increase, you have to find a way to pay for it.
  My amendment recognizes that reality and provides some relief for 
those employers. It should be borne in mind these employers, 
particularly small employers, are the source of the vast majority of 
jobs that are held by minimum wage workers. We have to continue to keep 
these businesses viable and growing as a source of job creation. As I 
said before, I wish for the people working in those places to be the 
ones owning the business, and I have shared some examples of how that 
happens.
  I ask that everyone bear in mind it is little solace to an individual 
earning minimum wage to learn that the minimum wage is increased but 
that he or she no longer has a job at which she can now earn the higher 
wage, or that it is not worth anything anymore because inflation took 
it away.
  It is for this reason my amendment contains not only the same 
increase as Senator Kennedy's amendment but includes provisions 
designed to soften the blow and ensure that those most-affected 
businesses continue to create jobs and entry-level, low-skilled 
employment opportunities.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy and to vote in favor of the more balanced and comprehensive 
approach to the minimum wage which is represented by my amendment.
  I ask for a unanimous consent request that following the scheduled 
votes at 4:30 the Senate proceed to the vote in relation to the motion 
to suspend the rules in relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 2078, with 
no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided 
there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote. I further ask 
that Senator Dorgan be recognized for up to 5 minutes prior to the 
start of the scheduled votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator has 3 minutes 17 seconds remaining on his allotted time.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield back my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 5 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  Mr. DORGAN. I understand my amendment has been ordered in a group of 
three amendments to be voted on. I will take 5 minutes to explain this 
amendment.
  This amendment deals with the establishment of the creation of a 
committee in the Congress to investigate the waste, corruption, and 
abuse in contracting in Iraq and also contracting, in most cases, sole-
source contracts, no-bid contracts, by companies that have gotten 
billions of dollars for reconstruction in Iraq, and now for 
reconstruction on the gulf coast.
  Let me go through some headlines to explain my concerns. In 5 minutes 
I cannot do much more than headlines, but I have held seven hearings on 
this subject now in the Policy Committee. ``No-bid contracts win 
Katrina work.'' That is the most recent one. ``White House uses 
practices criticized in Iraq rebuilding for hurricane-related jobs.''
  ``Ex-Halliburton workers allege rampant waste.'' ``They say the firm 
makes no effort to control costs, overspending taxpayer money in its 
contract with the United States in Iraq and Kuwait.''
  ``Halliburton faces criminal investigation.'' ``Pentagon probing 
alleged overcharges for Iraq fuel.''
  ``Audit questions $1.4 billion in Halliburton bills.''
  I mention Halliburton. It has nothing to do with the Vice President. 
Everyone says, Well, you are attacking the Vice President. He used to 
be president of Halliburton, yes, but this is long after he was 
involved in Halliburton. The fact is this is about contracting abuse.
  Let me go through a couple of the specific examples: New $85,000 
trucks paid for by the American taxpayers abandoned or torched by the 
side of the road in Iraq if they have a flat tire or a plugged fuel 
pump. A case of Coca-Cola, $45.
  They had gasoline delivered for twice the price that the folks who 
used to do the work in the Defense Energy Support Center said that 
gasoline could

[[Page 23189]]

have been delivered for. Halliburton charged for 42,000 meals served to 
soldiers every day, when they were serving 14,000 meals to soldiers. 
They missed it by 28,000--overcharging 28,000 meals a day.
  There was the loss of $18.6 million worth of Government equipment in 
Iraq that Halliburton was given to manage. There is also the leasing of 
SUVs. Listen to this, the leasing of SUVs for $7,500 a month. They 
ordered 50,000 pounds of nails, and they came in the wrong size. They 
are laying in the sands of Iraq. It does not matter. The taxpayer picks 
up the cost. This is all cost-plus.
  Do you want to buy some hand towels for the troops? The Halliburton 
buyer who was to order the hand towels was told by his superiors, ``You 
have to order hand towels with the company logo on them,'' which more 
than doubled the price. It does not matter. The taxpayer is picking up 
the tab for all of this. It is unbelievable waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Let me show one additional chart. This fellow shown in this picture 
testified at one of our hearings. These are $100 bills, batched 
together with Saran Wrap. He said: We used to play football with them. 
He said it was like the Old West. This is in Iraq. He said: We told 
people, subcontractors and contractors, we pay by cash. Bring a bag. 
Bring a bag. Here is the cash.
  Now, for Hurricane Katrina, no-bid contracts once again. By the way, 
the top civilian official at the Army Corps of Engineers said this: I 
can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to 
Halliburton represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I 
have ever witnessed during the course of my professional career.
  Do you know what happened to her? She lost her job. Why? For speaking 
out. You don't dare say these kinds of things.
  I spoke this morning about contracting abuse with respect to 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the contracts down in the Gulf of Mexico. 
I will not go into that again except to say this: When the Government 
and FEMA pay a truck driver $15,000 to haul ice cubes from New York to 
Massachusetts--yes, New York to Massachusetts--where they are now in 
storage, to provide relief to hurricane victims in Louisiana, somebody 
ought to have their head examined.
  Oh, the truck did go from New York, to Missouri, by mistake. FEMA 
directed them to Missouri. Then they said: Oh, we want you to go to 
Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. He took those ice cubes to Alabama. 
He sat there for 12 days, with hundreds of other trucks with food and 
clothing and ice and other things for victims--he sat there for 12 
days--and then they said: We want you to put this back in storage in 
Massachusetts. So the taxpayers paid this trucker--and there were 
hundreds of them--$15,000 for hauling ice for the relief of hurricane 
victims in Louisiana, hauling that ice from New York to Massachusetts. 
Once again, somebody ought to have their head examined.
  My point is, I would like to see a congressional committee examine 
this. This amendment would create a special committee. I hope my 
colleagues will believe, as I do, this waste, fraud, and abuse is 
intolerable, and we ought to deal with it by investigative committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 2063, As Further Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided before 
a vote in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, minimum wage workers are men and women of 
dignity. They are predominantly women. They are women with children. So 
it is a children's issue, a women's issue. These people who earn the 
minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a civil rights issue. 
But most of all, it is a fairness issue.
  Over the period of these last 5 months, we have passed class action 
legislation to provide special help and assistance to many of the 
largest corporations in this country. We have passed bankruptcy 
legislation to take care of the credit card companies. We passed an 
energy bill that will provide enormous bonuses to the oil companies.
  We have an opportunity this afternoon to pass an increase in the 
minimum wage for workers who have not seen an increase in the minimum 
wage over the last 9 years. This is about fairness. Americans 
understand it. They have seen it on the cover of their magazines with 
Hurricane Katrina. They know our fellow Americans need a helping hand. 
This can be enormously helpful to those Americans.
  Let's go ahead and pass it this afternoon.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to lend my strong support to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, of 
which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  It is far past time that we increase the Federal minimum wage. The 
last time Congress voted to increase the minimum wage was 9 years ago 
in 1996, and the last portion of this increase went into effect 8 years 
ago, in 1997. Since that time, consumers have faced increased prices 
for everything from food to clothing to housing to childcare. And in 
recent months, gas prices have skyrocketed, and home heating costs are 
expected to follow suit this winter.
  And while prices have increased, the purchasing power of the current 
Federal minimum wage of $5.15 has decreased by nearly 20 percent. A 
minimum wage employee working 40 hours per week can expect to earn 
$10,712 per year--this is $4,500 below the poverty line for a family of 
three.
  Many minimum wage earners are struggling to provide for the basic 
needs of themselves and their families. They cannot make ends meet on 
$10,712 per year. These are hard-working Americans who deserve a fair 
shake and who deserve a raise. Many work more than one job, sacrificing 
time with their children just to scrape by. Without an increase, these 
workers will continue to work long hours to support their families with 
little hope of saving for the future when they are barely able to 
afford the basic necessities of the present.
  According to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute, ``[t]he minimum wage now 
equals only 32 percent of the average wage for private sector, non-
supervisory workers. This is the lowest share since 1949.'' In other 
words, the average minimum wage worker makes less than one-third of the 
average nonsupervisory private sector worker.
  I am concerned about the argument made by some who oppose this 
amendment that most minimum wage workers are entry-level workers in 
first jobs who will advance their way out of these jobs and move on to 
better paying jobs. While that is certainly true for some workers, 
about two-thirds of those who would benefit from this increase are 
adults, and one-third of them are the sole breadwinners for their 
families.
  I was proud to vote for the 1996-1997 increase that brought the 
minimum wage to its current $5.15, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor 
of legislation introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy, that would increase the minimum wage to $7.25. The Economic 
Policy Institute notes that such an increase would directly help more 
than 7.3 million American workers. This increase will also help the 
children and other dependents of these workers potentially more than 15 
million people.
  Congress's inaction on this issue over the past several years has led 
to a growing grass-roots movement to increase the minimum wage at the 
state level. A number of States have enacted increases over the past 
few years, including Wisconsin. On June 1, 2005, the minimum wage for 
most workers in my State was increased to $5.70 per hour. The Wisconsin 
Department of Workforce Development estimated that this increase would 
help between 100,000-150,000 workers in my State. While this increase 
represents a step forward for Wisconsin workers, more work still

[[Page 23190]]

needs to be done to boost the purchasing power of these and other 
workers around our country.
  The amendment that we are considering today would increase the 
minimum wage by $1.10 to $6.25 over the next 18 months. While this 
modest increase will not go as far as I and many others in this body 
would in supporting the hard-working Americans who badly need a raise, 
it is a long-overdue step in the right direction.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, would 
also provide a $1.10 per hour increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
However, this amendment would also undermine low-income workers' 
struggle to break the cycle of poverty by allowing employers to deny 
these workers badly needed overtime pay through a so-called flex time 
scheme. This amendment, which is a total of 87 pages, also includes a 
number of other incentives for businesses that are intended to dampen 
the opposition of business groups to even this modest $1.10 increase in 
the Federal minimum wage. However, what these proposals would really do 
is continue the process of dismantling the 40-hour work week that was 
initiated with the implementation of the administration's ill-conceived 
overtime rule changes last year.
  By the Senator from Wyoming's, Mr. Enzi, own admission, the committee 
which he chairs, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, has not even considered many of these provisions. These 
provisions should not be rolled into a proposal to increase the minimum 
wage. The need to increase the Federal minimum wage stands on its own 
merit. And while I am certainly willing to consider a package of 
reforms for business, this is not the way to do it. Passage of such 
antiworker proposals should not be a condition of providing a much-
needed wage increase for the lowest income Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Enzi amendment and to support 
American workers by voting for the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for an 
amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to raise the Federal minimum wage 
from its current, astonishingly low, rate of $5.15 an hour to $6.25 an 
hour.
  An increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. Today, the real 
value of the minimum wage is more than $3.00 below what it was in 
1968--and at the lowest real rate in half a century. Since Congress 
last acted to raise the minimum wage in 1996, its value has eroded by 
17 percent. This indifference is simply unacceptable. To have the same 
purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would have to be more 
than $8.50 an hour. Yet nothing has been done, and the consequences of 
our inaction are very real and very painful to millions of Americans.
  Since President Bush took office, the number of Americans living in 
poverty has increased by 5.3 million. Today, 37 million people live in 
poverty, including 13 million children.
  Yet, despite the damage we do to our citizens and to our economy, 
this body has been unwilling to increase the Federal minimum wage. We 
had no problem passing a budget that gives tax cuts to millionaires and 
trillion-dollar companies. Yet we have had tremendous problems ensuring 
that hard-working Americans, Americans who work full time jobs and play 
by all the rules, won't have to live below the poverty line, won't have 
to decide between educating their children and feeding their family, 
won't have to chose between heating their home and buying prescription 
drugs.
  It is time for us to get our priorities straight. Seven and a half 
million workers will directly benefit from a minimum wage increase. 
Raising the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour would give minimum wage 
earners an additional $2,288 a year--enough to pay for a community 
college degree. Congress should act now to pass a minimum wage increase 
that makes up for our inexcusable failure to act in the past. I support 
Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kennedy amendment. 
Both amendments have the $1.10 minimum wage increase in them. But only 
my amendment provides for some way to offset that mandate so that small 
businesses which employ minimum wage workers can afford the minimum 
wage.
  My colleague's amendment will harm small businesses' economic growth 
and job creation. It would raise the cost for small businesses without 
providing any relief to soften the blow, forcing employers to make 
difficult choices, such as raising prices, reducing employee benefits, 
or terminating employees.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. My amendment protects 
small businesses' economic growth and job creation. As I said, they 
both raise the minimum wage by $1.10, to $6.25, in two steps of 55 
cents over 18 months.
  My amendment recognizes and addresses the fact that all minimum wage 
increases have certain costs. My amendment protects against the 
negative impact of this wage hike on small businesses, the biggest 
source of job creation. This proposal is responsible and reasonable and 
designed not to dislocate or unintentionally harm workers.
  I ask you to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question now occurs on amendment No. 2063, as further modified, 
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 
425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment is an 
unfunded mandate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Corzine) would vote ``aye.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Corzine
     Inouye
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote there are 47 yeas, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of 
Senator

[[Page 23191]]

Kennedy's amendment to increase the Federal minimum wage to $6.25 an 
hour. I strongly support this amendment. Unfortunately, I was delayed 
in arriving in Washington, DC, this afternoon. Had I been here, I would 
have voted yes.
  An increase in the Federal minimum wage is long overdue.
  It has now been over 8 year since the minimum wage was increased to 
its current level of $5.15 per hour. Since that last increase, 
Congress's failure to adjust the wage for inflation has reduced the 
purchasing power of the minimum wage to record low levels. In fact, 
after accounting for the loss of real value due to inflation, the 
purchasing power of the minimum wage has not been this low since the 
wage increase of 1945.
  When Congress acted to raise the minimum wage in 1996, the wage was 
raised from $4.75 to its current $5.15. At the time, this modest 
increase had real results for American families. The adjustment 
increased the take-home pay of nearly 10 million hard-working 
Americans. But with inflation, the real dollar value of that increase 
is long gone.
  So that we are clear, raising the minimum wage is a family issue. So 
often in this body we talk about family issues. This is our chance to 
act.
  No family gets rich from earning the minimum wage. In fact, the 
current minimum wage does not even lift a family out of poverty. A 
person earning the current minimum wage, working 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks a year, earns only $10,700--nearly $4,000 below the poverty line 
for a family of three.
  Seven out of every 10 minimum wage workers are adults, and 40 percent 
of minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinners of their families. 
Moreover, a disproportionate number of minimum wage workers are women. 
Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are women, and many are single 
mothers who must put food on the table, make rent payments, and provide 
childcare. Increasing the minimum wage by a mere $1.10 per hour would 
provide tangible help to these families in the form of groceries, rent, 
and the ability to pay rising energy costs.
  I am proud that lawmakers in my State have recognized that the 
Federal minimum wage level simply is not adequate for a decent standard 
of living in high-cost States such as New Jersey. On October 1, the 
minimum wage in my State increased to $6.15, and on October 1, 2006, it 
will increase again to $7.15. I know that this increase will have a 
meaningful effect on people's lives: it means on average 15 months of 
child care; over a year of tuition at a community college; 10 months of 
heat and electricity; 6 months of groceries; and 5 months of rent. It 
is estimated that the increase will directly benefit some 200,000 
workers.
  But fair wages should not be guaranteed only to workers in a few 
States. I support Senator Kennedy's amendment because I believe that 
all Americans should be entitled to a decent standard of living. 
Unfortunately, neither the current minimum wage, nor Senator Enzi's 
amendment, can relieve the problems of low-income families in this 
country.
  I support the Kennedy amendment because it seeks to provide a real-
wage increase to workers that will help them keep up with the rising 
cost of living in our Nation. I strongly oppose the Enzi amendment 
offered by my Republican colleagues, because it is a cruel hoax on 
hard-working Americans.
  It is politics over policy, and it is just plain wrong.
  All of our hard-working families nationwide need and deserve a 
minimum wage that reflects the increased cost of living in America. It 
is the least we can do for people who work hard and make a positive 
contribution to our great Nation.
  I strongly support a raise in the minimum wage for the millions of 
Americans who work so hard to support their families. We as Americans 
can do better. We must act now.


                           Amendment No. 2115

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 2115 offered by the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I make a point of order. The Senator is 
entitled to be heard and I think the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote for my 
amendment, which raises the minimum wage level by the same amount as 
the previous amendment. The reason this amendment deserves your support 
whereas the last one did not is that my amendment has some small 
business offsets that will actually give them a chance to be able to 
pay the minimum wage increase without having to lay people off, without 
having to accept some other alternatives that would be very detrimental 
to employees. This amendment helps the small business people that 
employ minimum wage workers by giving them some tax breaks which are 
all offset. This amendment also includes five other good policy 
initiatives which I have mentioned previously in great detail.
  I would ask that you vote for this amendment and provide small 
businesses with the help they need to be able to afford a minimum wage 
increase.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if you are interested in an increase in 
the minimum wage, this is not the way to go. We offered an increase in 
the minimum wage which was two pages. His amendment is 87 pages, and in 
that 87 pages includes 3, at least, very important items that are going 
to shortchange American workers.
  First, it changes the eligibility of those who are going to be 
covered and eliminates 10 million workers who are covered today.
  Secondly, it eliminates overtime. It is called flextime, but the 
decision whether it is going to be flexible will be decided by the 
employer, and therefore you are going to find that for the average 
worker in this country earning $44,000, $3,000 in overtime will be 
eliminated.
  Finally, this legislation effectively preempts 31 States that have a 
tip credit program. On page 21: Any State may not establish or enforce 
their tip credit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That will disadvantage workers in 31 States. This is the 
wrong amendment for American workers and it should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable section of 
the Budget Act and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 258 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Byrd

[[Page 23192]]


     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 42, the nays are 
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on vote No. 257, the Kennedy minimum wage 
amendment, Senator Corzine was absent because of a plane delay. If he 
were present, he would have voted ``aye''.


                           Amendment No. 2078

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to the vote on the motion to suspend.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. The motion to suspend is my amendment. It deals with an 
underlying amendment that would establish an investigative committee to 
deal with waste, fraud, and abuse dealing both with the country of Iraq 
and the reconstruction in Iraq, as well as reconstruction in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and in the gulf region following Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita.
  I will not recite all of the examples of substantial abuse from sole-
source contracts, but it is dramatic. I believe very strongly, just as 
Harry Truman did back in the 1940s in uncovering substantial waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the Department of Defense at a time when a member 
of his own party occupied the White House, I believe this Congress 
deserves good, strong oversight. We will get that with a special 
committee looking into this massive waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I would hope very much my colleagues would agree with me. If they 
believe we are spending too much, that there is waste, fraud, and abuse 
that we ought to get after, they ought to be voting for this amendment 
and vote to suspend the rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the concern of my friend from 
North Dakota, who is a vigilant guardian of taxpayer dollars. I point 
out that the Armed Services Committee is doing work literally every day 
and every week on this issue. We also have Appropriations Committee 
oversight on much of this, and I believe that under the existing 
structure we have today, including the excellent leadership of our 
chairman and vice chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, that 
this amendment is not necessary.
  I understand the concern of the Senator from North Dakota. I just do 
not believe it is necessary at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I also point out that there is a special 
inspector general overseeing all of these contracts. His name is Stuart 
Bowen. He does an excellent job. He has been very aggressive in his 
audits and investigations. He regularly briefs all Members who are 
interested, and he issues a report every quarter on his findings. So I 
do believe we have an adequate structure in place, a needed structure 
to be sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to suspend rule XVI, 
paragraph 4, for the consideration of amendment No. 2078 offered by the 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 259 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Burns
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
54. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are going to clear a number of 
amendments, including the amendment by the Senator from Iowa. The 
ranking member and I were going to clear a number of amendments and 
agree to them one at a time. Did the Senator have a very brief 
statement which he wants to make on that or does he want to speak for a 
longer time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have about 5 minutes at the most.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on that assumption, we will defer to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill. I have 
an amendment to send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 2076

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2076.

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

 (Purpose: To provide that no funds may be used to provide assistance 
 under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, to certain 
 students at institutions of higher education, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec. 1__. (a) No assistance shall be provided under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) 
     to any individual who--
       (1) is enrolled as a student at an institution of higher 
     education (as defined under section 102 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002));
       (2) is under 24 years of age;

[[Page 23193]]

       (3) is not a veteran;
       (4) is unmarried;
       (5) does not have a dependent child; and
       (6) is not otherwise individually eligible, or has parents 
     who, individually or jointly, are not eligible, to receive 
     assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
       (b) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a person 
     to receive assistance under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), any financial 
     assistance (in excess of amounts received for tuition) that 
     an individual receives under the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), from private sources, or an 
     institution of higher education (as defined under the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002), shall be considered 
     income to that individual.
       (c) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall issue final regulations to carry out the provisions of 
     this section.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in June of 2004, an article appeared in 
the Des Moines Register outlining serious systemic abuses of the 
section 8 program by a number of wealthy athletes at the University of 
Iowa. For example, Brian Ferentz, a Hawkeye football player, was found 
to be living in subsidized housing despite the fact that his father, 
Kirk Ferentz, lives in a million- dollar mansion in the same town and 
is paid $2 million a year to coach his team. To add insult to injury, 
Brian's scholarship actually included a $700-per-month stipend for 
housing, yet he was living in section 8 housing.
  After reading about this abuse, I immediately wrote to the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development, urging him to close this loophole, 
which was the unintended consequence of a 1995 regulation allowing 
students to qualify for section 8, in order to help people of modest 
means have a chance at an education and to better themselves. 
Unfortunately, HUD's response was far from adequate. HUD's solution 
allowed students who live away from home for just a year into the 
program, if their parents stopped claiming them on their taxes. It is a 
pretty easy calculation to see that a simple deduction is worth less 
than a year's rent, so it is easy for parents to decide to stop 
claiming their otherwise dependant children in order to save money.
  Fortunately, language was included in the final omnibus 
appropriations bill last year closing a little more of this loophole. 
It said that if you get an athletic scholarship, anything above tuition 
should be counted as income. Unfortunately, this doesn't go far enough. 
This doesn't address people who are getting housing stipends from other 
kinds of scholarships, and doesn't address students whose millionaire 
parents decided not to claim them on their taxes, but have those kinds 
of resources available to them.
  Recently, the Des Moines Register took another look at who is living 
in the notorious housing project that has housed so many student 
athletes in the past. The problem is still there, in full force, well 
over a year after my first letter to HUD. The Register's Lee Rood 
reported the following:

       While other students foraged this month for new apartments, 
     at least three dozen Hawkeye athletes--many of whom receive 
     $6,560 annually for room and board as well as free tuition--
     returned to one of the best low-rent housing deals in this 
     notoriously high-rent city: Pheasant Ridge Apartments.

  It is time to solve this problem once and for all. These students are 
taking up housing that is meant for truly needy people--people who 
typically have to wait 2 years for housing assistance, despite the fact 
that they may have the means to pay rent.
  My amendment would simply require students' parental income to be 
considered in determining their eligibility unless they are independent 
students under the same qualifications that the Department of Education 
uses in their Free Application for Student Financial Aid. That is to 
say, students' parental income would count against them unless they are 
over age 24, married, have kids, or are veterans. Further, it would 
require a student's scholarship above the cost of tuition to be counted 
as income.
  Clearly, students who are truly needy should have access to section 
8. Help with housing often makes the difference between being able to 
get an education and not being able to make ends meet. However, kids 
whose parents have the means to help them should not be living in this 
housing. And if they are getting a housing stipend, some of it should 
actually be spent on housing. That's all I ask.
  We cannot allow our system to be abused by people who take taxpayer 
dollars inappropriately, and then go off to sign multimillion-dollar 
NFL contracts. People who do need the help--including our most frail 
elderly, people with disabilities, and genuinely disadvantaged folks--
are getting displaced. This has been going on for well over a year, and 
despite pleas to HUD to fix this, the abuse has not stopped. There is 
no other way to put a quick end to this fraud. My amendment will end it 
with the stroke of the President's pen.
  This amendment will finally close all those loopholes.
  I thank the manager of the bill and the ranking member for their 
consideration. I urge acceptance of this amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we believe the amendment of the Senator from 
Iowa makes good sense. It has been cleared on both sides. I believe it 
can be agreed to by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2076) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have a number of amendments which have 
been cleared on both sides. We propose to bring them up individually 
and ask for their immediate consideration and a voice vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments in order 
to offer those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2070

  Mr. BOND. First, I call up amendment 2070 on behalf of Senator 
Collins. This amendment would repeal the increased limit on the 
micropurchase threshold on Government credit cards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Ms. Collins, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Warner, Mr. Levin, Mr. Coleman, Mr. 
     Dorgan, and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 2070.

  Mr. BOND. 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 repeal the increased micropurchase threshold)

       On page 406, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 724. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD.

       Section 101 of the Second Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the 
     Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (Public Law 109-62; 
     119 Stat. 1992) is repealed.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Dorgan and Wyden be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2070) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2101, as Modified

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Akaka.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 23194]]

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Akaka, and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2101, as 
     modified.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for an Internal Revenue Service report regarding 
                  tax refund procedures and practices)

       On page 293, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. _____. By not later than June 30, 2006, the Internal 
     Revenue Service, in consultation with the National Taxpayer 
     Advocate, shall report on the uses of the Debt Indicator 
     tool, the debt collection offset practice, and 
     recommendations that could reduce the amount of time required 
     to deliver tax refunds. In addition, the report shall study 
     whether the Debt Indicator facilitates the use of refund 
     anticipation loan (RALs), evaluate alternatives to RALs, and 
     examine the feasibility of debit cards being used to 
     distribute refunds.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment requires the IRS to submit a 
report on the debt indicator program which is currently used by the IRS 
to assist in tax filing and speeding up tax refunds where applicable. 
Senator Akaka has raised legitimate concerns on whether the debt 
indicator has led to the abuse of certain refund loans. While there are 
legitimate and appropriate refund loans, there is, unfortunately, some 
abuse of them. We need to address this problem.
  This amendment has been modified after discussion with our staff and 
the IRS.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2101), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2139

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2139.

  Mr. BOND. 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 ensure that proper precautions are taken by airports and 
air carriers to recognize and prevent the spread of avian flu, and for 
                            other purposes)

       On page 219, line 5, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services and the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, not later than 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, shall establish procedures 
     with airport directors located at United States airports that 
     have incoming flights from any country that has had cases of 
     avian flu and with air carriers that provide such flights to 
     deal with situations where a passenger on one of the flights 
     has symptoms of avian flu .''.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. It requires the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and FAA, to establish 
procedures to deal with airline passengers who have avian flu symptoms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2139) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on a lighter note, I understand that David 
Letterman last night said there had been an instance of avian flu being 
transmitted to human beings. He also noted that several Astros had come 
into contact with the Cardinals on Monday night and suffered greatly. 
Fortunately, I hope that epidemic only returns tonight and tomorrow 
night.


                    Amendment No. 2073, as Modified

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2073, and I send a 
modification to the desk on behalf of Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2073, as modified.

  Mr. BOND. 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 allocate funds for improvement to Lawton-Fort Sill 
               Regional Airport, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration for ARAC consolidation of Fort Sill, Oklahoma 
     into OKC TRACON: Provided, That $3,000,000 of the fund 
     appropriated under the heading ``Facilities and Equipment'' 
     shall be available for ARAC operation and maintenance at Fort 
     Sill, Oklahoma.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as a result of BRAC decisions, the military 
is reconsidering closing the Army Radar Approach Control at Fort Sill, 
OK. This amendment prohibits the FAA from moving air traffic control 
over the area to the TRACON at Oklahoma City.
  The amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment? 
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2073), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Stabenow and ask it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Ms. Stabenow, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2140.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide additional funds to support programs established 
                     under the LEGACY Act of 2003)

       On page 316, line 26, after ``Provided,'' insert ``That of 
     the amount made available under this heading, $10,000,000 
     shall be made available to carry out section 203 of Public 
     Law 108-186,

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the HUD elderly 
demonstration program. It provides a set-aside out of HUD's 202 elderly 
housing program to fund the legacy housing program which provides for 
intergen-
erational housing units to assist low-income grandparents who are heads 
of households. This program was enacted in 2003. It seems to make 
eminent good sense to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2140) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2072, as Modified

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2072 on behalf 
of Senator Craig, and I send a modification of the amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Craig, Mr. 
     Crapo and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 2072, 
     as modified.


[[Page 23195]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2072), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the use of a sliding scale match ratio for certain 
             transportation projects in the State of Idaho)

       On page 276, after line 24, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Subsection (a) of section 1964 of Public Law 109-
     59 is amended by inserting ``Idaho, Washington,'' after 
     ``Oregon,''.

  Mr. BOND. I ask that Senator Murray be added as a cosponsor.
  The amendment clarifies the non-Federal share for certain funding. It 
has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  I ask my colleague if she wishes to make any comments.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment is an important step for 
both of our States. I appreciate the Senator from Missouri bringing it 
forward tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2072), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2123

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2123 for 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2123.

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

   (Purpose: To prevent gas and oil gouging during natural disasters)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

 TITLE__--NATURAL DISASTER OIL AND GAS PRICE GOUGING PREVENTION ACT OF 
                                  2005

     SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Natural Disaster Oil and 
     Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2005''.

     SEC. _02. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Trade Commission.
       (2) Qualifying natural disaster declaration.--The term 
     ``qualifying natural disaster declaration'' means--
       (A) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary under 
     section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)); or
       (B) a major disaster or emergency designated by the 
     President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

     SEC. _03. RESTRICTION ON PRICE GOUGING.

       (a) Restrictions.--It shall be unlawful in the United 
     States during the period of a qualifying natural disaster 
     declaration in the United States to increase the price of any 
     oil or gas product more than 15 percent above the price of 
     that product immediately prior to the declaration unless the 
     increase in the amount charged is attributable to additional 
     costs incurred by the seller or national or international 
     market trends.
       (b) Enforcement.--
       (1) Enforcement powers.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission shall enforce this section 
     as part of its duties under the Federal Trade Commission Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
       (B) Reporting of violations.--For purposes of the 
     enforcement of this section, the Commission shall establish 
     procedures to permit the reporting of violations of this 
     section to the Commission, including appropriate links on the 
     Internet website of the Commission and the use of a toll-free 
     telephone number for such purposes.
       (2) Penalty.--
       (A) Criminal penalty.--A violation of this section shall be 
     deemed a felony and a person, upon conviction of a violation 
     of this section, shall be punished by fine not exceeding 
     $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, 
     $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or both.
       (B) Civil penalty.--The Commission may impose a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each violation of this 
     section. For purposes of this subparagraph, each day of 
     violation shall constitute a separate offense. Civil 
     penalties under this subparagraph shall not exceed amounts 
     provided in subparagraph (A).
       (c) Action by State Attorney General.--The attorney general 
     of a State may bring a civil action for a violation of this 
     section pursuant to section 4C of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
     15c).

  Mr. DAYTON. This makes it a felony to raise oil or gas prices more 
than 15 percent during a natural disaster and other emergencies, and 
gives the U.S. Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Justice, and State 
Attorneys General the authority to prosecute violators. This creates an 
exception for cases in which a price increase is directly attributable 
to additional costs incurred by the seller.
  Currently, no Federal laws exist to address gasoline price gouging. 
Only 13 States have such laws to prosecute those who raise prices 
arbitrarily during times of emergency.
  On September 1, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 
President Bush said in response to the price gouging that was underway:

       There ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law 
     during an emergency such as this, whether it be looting or 
     price gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking advantage of 
     charitable giving or insurance fraud.

  On September 6th of this year, I wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney 
General in which I said, in part:

       I respectfully urge the Justice Department to follow 
     through on the President's warning and to investigate the 
     sudden spike in gas prices nationwide, following Hurricane 
     Katrina.

  I further wrote:

       I am deeply concerned that oil suppliers have used 
     Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to grossly overcharge 
     consumers, regardless of whether fuel is in short supply. The 
     Administration has a responsibility to protect consumers from 
     anyone who would exploit catastrophic circumstances for 
     outrageous profit, and I respectfully urge you to investigate 
     this matter.

  I ask unanimous consent my letter be printed at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. DAYTON. Almost 7 weeks later, I have not received even the 
courtesy of a reply from the U.S. Attorney General. More importantly, I 
am not aware of anything that he has done to investigate collusion 
among the oil companies, the refiners, and the gasoline distributors 
whose post-Hurricane Katrina price escalations parallel one another.
  Gasoline prices nationwide are 36 percent higher than 1 year ago. 
Natural gas prices are 145 percent higher. That means that current 
natural gas prices are almost 2\1/2\ times what they were a year ago.
  The price of home heating oil in my home State of Minnesota now is 63 
percent above a year ago. Americans everywhere are being ravaged 
economically by energy companies, as the citizens in Louisiana and 
Mississippi were ravaged by Katrina--although, obviously, their 
physical and economic devastation was even worse.
  While we have properly come to the aid of hurricane victims, Congress 
has done nothing to help the victims of this energy price disaster. 
Apparently, the Bush administration has failed them, also.
  My amendment is an opportunity to do something to stop energy price 
exploitation, to make price gouging as illegal as it is immoral.
  Actions speak louder than words. Now is the time to act against 
exorbitant energy prices, not just talk about them. The vote on my 
amendment will show who is serious about driving energy costs down for 
all Americans, and who is not.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                September 6, 2005.
     Hon. Alberto Gonzales,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Attorney General: On September 1st, President Bush 
     said, with respect to price gouging following Hurricane 
     Katrina, ``There ought to be zero tolerance of people 
     breaking the law during an emergency such as this, whether it 
     be looting, or price-gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking 
     advantage of charitable giving, or insurance fraud.''

[[Page 23196]]

       I respectfully urge the Justice Department to follow 
     through on the President's warning and to investigate the 
     sudden spike in gas prices nationwide, following Hurricane 
     Katrina.
       In my home state of Minnesota, gas prices rose by 52 
     percent--from $1.97 to $3.01 per gallon--in the three-month 
     period from June 1st to September 1st. In three days alone, 
     from August 29th to September 1st, Minnesota gas prices 
     surged 45 cents per gallon. I understand that storm damage to 
     oil operations off the Gulf Coast has caused part of the 
     problem. However, most of Minnesota's oil supply originates 
     from Canada.
       I am deeply concerned that oil suppliers have used 
     Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to grossly overcharge 
     consumers, regardless of whether fuel is in short supply. The 
     Administration has a responsibility to protect consumers from 
     anyone who would exploit catastrophic circumstances for 
     outrageous profit, and I respectfully urge you to investigate 
     this matter.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mark Dayton.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, not having had a chance to review the entire 
workings of the amendment, this is a very serious legislative 
amendment. Unfortunately, this is not the appropriate place to raise 
this legislation. It is more appropriately concerned with the Energy 
Committee or other committees. I, therefore, raise a point of order 
that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. I believe now the 
Chair has a copy of the amendment. I raise an objection under rule XVI 
that this is legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the point is 
well-taken. This is legislating on an appropriations bill and the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2141

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington, [Mrs. Murray], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2141.

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

 (Purpose: To require the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to 
conduct an assessment of guidance disseminated by agencies for grantees 
                    of homeless assistance programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: Page 406, 
     line 8 insert a new paragraph.
       Sec. 724. The United States Interagency Council on 
     Homelessness shall conduct an assessment of the guidance 
     disseminated by the Department of Education, the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development, and other related federal 
     agencies for grantees of homeless assistance programs on 
     whether such guidance is consistent with and does not 
     restrict the exercise of education rights provided to 
     parents, youth, and children under subtitle B of title VII of 
     the McKinney-Vento Act: Provided, That such assessment shall 
     address whether the practices, outreach, and training efforts 
     of said agencies serve to protect and advance such rights: 
     Provided further, That the Council shall submit to the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations an interim report by 
     May 1, 2006, and a final report by September 1, 2006.

  Mrs. MURRAY. This amendment has been cleared on both sides. It simply 
requires the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to make sure that 
all of the appropriate agencies take into consideration the homeless 
assistance programs. This is especially important for kids today who 
are homeless, to make sure their rights are protected.
  I ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand this amendment is necessary 
because in some homeless shelters, children are being sent to schools 
where they have not been going. It has caused a great deal of 
confusion. This is an appropriate measure and we accept it on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2141) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today for one very simple reason, 
the days are relentlessly marching toward winter . . . the clock is 
ticking as the thermometer edges ever downward . . . and it would be 
unconscionable for Congress to adjourn for the year without providing 
critical, additional assistance for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, at a time of skyrocketing fuel prices.
  There should be no mistake, this is an emergency and a crisis we know 
is coming, and it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to stand 
by and allow it to occur. It does not take a crystal ball to predict 
the dire consequences when home heating oil in Maine is $2.52 per 
gallon, up 59 cents from a year ago . . . kerosene prices average $2.95 
a gallon, 75 cents higher than this time last year, and it is not even 
winter yet. Some projections have a gallon of heating oil reaching 
$3.00.
  So understandably, we are already hearing the mounting concern ``how 
will I pay for home heating oil when it's 30 percent more than last 
year, and I struggled to make ends meet then?'' ``How will I afford to 
pay half again as much for natural gas?'' People need to know now that 
they can count on us for assistance.
  This is a necessity of life--so much so that 73 percent of households 
in a recent survey reported they would cut back on, and even go 
without, other necessities such as food, prescription drugs, and 
mortgage and rent payments. Churches, food pantries, local service 
organizations--they are all hearing the cry, and all the leaves aren't 
even yet off of the trees. The fact is, countless American's don't have 
room in their budget, many on fixed incomes, for this sudden surge in 
home heating prices but surely, in looking at our national priorities, 
we can find room in our budget to help Americans stay warm this winter.
  Because of the supply disruptions caused by the hurricanes at a time 
when prices were already spiraling up, prices have been driven even 
higher and are directly affecting low income Mainers and how they will 
be able to pay for their home heating oil, propane and kerosene this 
winter. A recent Wall Street Journal quoted Jo-Ann Choate, who heads up 
Maine's LIHEAP program. Ms. Choate said, ``This year we've got a very 
good chance of running out.'' Eighty-four percent of the applicants for 
the LIHEAP program in the State use oil heat. Over 46,000 applied for 
and received State LIHEAP funds last winter. Each household received 
$480, which covered the cost of 275 gallons of heating oil.
  The problem this winter is that the same $480 will buy only 172 
gallons, which a household will use up in the first 3 to 4 weeks in 
Maine. What will these people do to stay warm for the four or five 
months left of winter? The water pipes will freeze and then break, 
damaging homes. People will start using their stoves to get heat. The 
Mortgage Bankers Association expects that the steep energy costs could 
increase the number of missed payments and lost homes beginning later 
this year. My State is expecting at least 48,000 applicants this 
winter, so there will be less money distributed to each household 
unless we can obtain higher funding for the LIHEAP program.
  Ms. Choate says that Maine plans to focus on the elderly, disabled, 
and families with small children, and is studying how to move others to 
heated shelters. This is why our efforts are so very important. And it 
isn't just Maine, it is happening in all of the Nation's cold weather 
States. Quite simply, without increased funding, we are forcing the 
managers of State LIHEAP programs to make a Solomon's choice. I request 
that the Wall Street Journal article of October 6, 2005 be printed for 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 23197]]



              [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6, 2005]

  Fearing Shortfall Linked to Hurricanes, States Scramble to Stretch 
                      Federal Aid Among the Needy

                          (By John J. Fialka)

       Washington.--State managers of the $2 billion federal 
     program that helps poor people pay their heating bills say 
     that price increases following hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
     could mean some homes will run out of fuel this winter.
       The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program has helped 
     consumers pay about half of the average $600 home heating 
     bill in recent years. But this winter will be different. The 
     Department of Energy estimates that the cost of heating an 
     average home with oil will rise to $1,666 and to $1,568 for 
     natural gas, but the federal money budgeted for the program 
     remains the same.
       ``We're looking at a situation we've never really faced 
     before,'' says Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National 
     Energy Assistance Directors' Association, state agencies that 
     funnel the federal money to people who meet state criteria 
     for fuel help.
       The problem will be most acute in Northern states, where 
     running out of fuel poses health risks, particularly to the 
     elderly, and could damage homes if water pipes freeze and 
     then break. ``This year we've got a very good chance of 
     running out,'' says Jo-Ann Choate, who manages the program 
     for Maine's Housing Authority.
       Her state's program has already received a host of new 
     applications, but its buying power has shrunk. Last year, the 
     program paid $480 for each household it assisted, covering 
     the cost of 275 gallons of heating oil. This year, $480 will 
     buy only 172 gallons. She figures that in a normal winter, 
     ``That will go in the first three or four weeks.''
       If there is a funding shortfall, Maine plans to focus the 
     money it has on the elderly, disabled and families with small 
     children. It is studying how to move others to heated 
     shelters. ``We'll need to get people who know how to drain 
     the pipes if people are moved out of their homes,'' Ms. 
     Choate says. ``They'll have to be volunteers, though, because 
     we'll have no money to pay them.''
       In Wisconsin, Susan Brown, director of the state's energy-
     assistance program, says the program ``will pay less of a 
     given heating bill.'' The number of clients--70% of whom use 
     natural gas--has traditionally grown by 2% a year. This year, 
     she worries that number could increase by as much as 30%. 
     ``If that's the case,'' she warns, ``we will simply have to 
     shut the program down.''
       According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     which provides the money to states, heating-bill increases 
     are felt more acutely by the poor. In 2002, for example, the 
     average household spent 5.9% of its income on heating 
     compared with 12.6% spent by low-income households.
       Additional help may be on the way as Congress and the Bush 
     administration weigh proposals to increase funding. Senate 
     Democrats led by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts are trying 
     to add $3.1 billion to the program by attaching the money to 
     a Defense Department spending bill.
       ``It is unthinkable that this administration would fail to 
     have the emergency funds available to help families who need 
     it the most,'' Sen. Kerry said in a statement, suggesting 
     that Democrats will have a powerful issue for next year's 
     elections if there is a shortfall of heating funds this 
     winter.
       A spokesman for the HHS, which added some emergency funds 
     to the program during last year's heating season, said an 
     increase in funding this year would be for Congress to 
     decide. Paul Scofield, a spokesman for the House 
     Appropriations Committee, said that ``we've always tried to 
     keep this program funded,'' but added that, so far, it hasn't 
     received any proposal to add money from the Bush 
     administration.
       ``We've had a very mild winter in the last five or six 
     years. If we get a real Montana winter this year, that's 
     what's really got us spooked,'' says Jim Nolan, the heating 
     program's director in Montana. Last year his program served 
     21,000 households, but about 85,000 are potentially eligible 
     this year. With rising energy costs, he says, ``we could 
     reach a tipping point and drive the number of applicants much 
     higher.''
       His department is lobbying for more assistance money from 
     state electricity and gas utilities, which have a ``public 
     purpose fund'' that earmarks 25 percent for energy assistance 
     for the poor. This year, Mr. Nolan wants 70 percent of the 
     money, which would take funding away from renewable-energy 
     projects, such as solar and wind power.
       Mr. Wolfe, who represents the state directors in 
     Washington, says that without substantially more help from 
     the federal government, the states and utilities will have to 
     use a ``triage'' system to get families through the winter. 
     In some states that will mean shifting more money to homes 
     that use heating oil because oil distributors customarily 
     won't deliver unless they are paid in advance, Mr. Wolfe 
     says.
       That means less money for utilities that supply natural 
     gas. Those companies, on the other hand, are reluctant to cut 
     off homes in the dead of winter. ``They'll get paid later,'' 
     says Mr. Wolfe, who said legislatures in several states 
     including Massachusetts, New York and some in the Midwest are 
     pondering ways to supplement the federal funding.
       The effects of a federal program stretched thin will be 
     uneven, since some utilities have a much higher percentage of 
     low-income customers than others. About three-fourths of the 
     nation's home heating-oil customers are in New England.
       In Montana, a state law forbids natural-gas companies from 
     shutting off fuel to customers in the winter. But users of 
     propane, a gas commonly used in rural areas, aren't 
     protected.
       Chemical companies and manufacturers that produce products 
     using natural gas often have ``interruptible contracts,'' 
     which means that if supplies run short, utilities will cut 
     them off and send the gas to homeowners.
       If there are frequent interruptions this winter, ``it's 
     going to wash its way through the entire economy,'' predicts 
     Charles Van Vlack, vice president of the American Chemistry 
     Council, which represents 130 companies. ``Just saying 
     industrial users are going to drop off of the [supply] system 
     is a poor outcome. It's going to knock out jobs.''

  The Federal Department of Energy has predicted that homeowners who 
use oil for heat and propane will spend 30 percent more this year than 
last, and natural gas users will spend 48 percent more. According to 
the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, heating costs for 
the average family using heating oil are projected to hit $1,666 for 
the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last 
winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004.
  For families using natural gas, prices are projected to hit $1,568, 
which is an increase of $611 over last year's price and $643 over 2003-
2004. This is the largest increase in home heating prices in over 30 
years. This is why our amendment is so very important.
  Congress recently passed an Energy bill which is now law. In that 
bill, we authorized $5.1 billion for the LIHEAP program. My goal is to 
see that this is totally funded. We simply have to show that we meant 
what we asked for and totally fund the LIHEAP program. A total of $5.1 
billion has already been authorized. All we are asking with this 
measure is to provide an additional $3.1 billion in emergency LIHEAP 
funding in additional to the $2 billion already requested by the 
President. Passage of this amendment to the Transportation/Treasury/
Housing Appropriations bill is vital.
  The facts are that LIHEAP is projected to help 5 million households 
nationwide this winter. But that's only about one-sixth of households 
across the country that qualify for the assistance. So this is a 
perennial fight we wage even when prices aren't as high as today. And 
now, that battle becomes all the more pivotal.
  I want to thank Senators Reed and Collins for their leadership on 
this amendment and I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them 
to secure what is, in essence, literally life-or-death funding for our 
most vulnerable Americans. The cold weather won't wait and neither 
should we when it comes to helping citizens survive through the winter.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with temperatures dropping, there are few 
more important duties than keeping our citizens safe and warm for the 
winter. Rising fuel prices give added urgency to our efforts to lend a 
hand to those who can't afford their heating bills.
  Sadly, the gap between rich and poor has been widening in our 
society, especially in recent years. The number of persons living in 
poverty in the Nation has risen from 31 million in 2000 to 37 million 
today, a 19 percent increase during the Bush administration. Thirteen 
million children now live in poverty. Wages remain stagnant, while 
inflation inexorably sinks more and more families below the poverty 
line. The long-term unemployment rate is at historic highs. There is no 
excuse for America to continue to look the other way. Hurricane Katrina 
demonstrated the plight of minorities for all of us to see, for all the 
world to see. The ``silent slavery of poverty'' is not so silent any 
more.
  For those in poverty, the American dream is a nightmare. Families 
stay awake at night worrying how to make ends meet. Parents wonder how 
they will feed their children and pay their bills.
  Rising energy costs are a huge part of the problem. Significant 
numbers of

[[Page 23198]]

citizens live with the constant threat of power shut-offs, because they 
can't pay their energy bills, and there's no relief in sight.
  According to a recent report by the Energy Information 
Administration, the outlook for the coming winter is bleak. Home 
heating bills are likely to soar. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have 
strained already-tight oil and natural gas production. According to the 
American Petroleum Institute, 20 percent of the Nation's refinery 
capacity is down or is restarting as a result of damage by both 
hurricanes.
  On average, households heating primarily with natural gas will pay 
$350 more this winter for heat, an increase of an incredible 48 percent 
over last year. Those relying primarily on oil will pay $378 more, an 
increase of 32 percent.
  These are not just abstract numbers. They represent huge burdens on 
real people. Just last week, Mayor Menino and I met with low-income 
seniors at the Curtis Hall Community Center in Massachusetts. They are 
scared that they won't be able to make ends meet this winter. They are 
worried about how they'll pay their high home heating bills. 
Predictions of a cold winter and sky-high fuel costs mean that the 
elderly, the disabled, and many others will be forced to make 
impossible choices between heating their homes and paying for food, or 
health care, or rent.
  A Federal program is supposed to be available to help the poorest of 
the poor to avoid these unacceptable tradeoffs. LIHEAP, the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, grants aid to low-income families who 
can't afford the steep cost of energy.
  The number of households receiving this assistance has increased from 
4 million in 2002 to 5 million this year, the highest level in ten 
years.
  Ninety-four percent of LIHEAP households have at least one family 
member who is elderly, disabled, a child under the age of 18, or a 
single parent with a young child. 77 percent of LIHEAP recipients 
report an annual income at or below $20,000 and 61 percent of 
recipients have annual incomes at or below the poverty line.
  Shameful, however, LIHEAP is not being given the funds needed to meet 
today's responsibilities. In fact, the President's budget funds the 
program at $2 billion which is almost the same today as when the 
program was created in 1981, the first year of the administration of 
President Ronald Reagan. Since then, heating oil prices have gone up 
265 percent.
  Meanwhile, demand for LIHEAP funding has increased. In Massachusetts, 
it serves 130,000 households, including 15,000 in Boston.
  Eight thousand of the 12,000 fuel assistance applications sent out 
for this winter have already been returned, 1,500 more than this time 
last year.
  With current funding, even those receiving LIHEAP assistance won't 
receive enough to last the entire winter.
  In Massachusetts, one 71-year-old woman lives alone and keeps her 
thermostat set at 60 degrees to save money. She hopes the Federal 
Government will come through with more LIHEAP money before she runs out 
of ways to pay her heating bill. She says, ``I turn down the thermostat 
as low as I can and sometimes I turn it off and put on extra sweaters. 
I don't know how much longer I can keep doing this.''
  Many families will struggle just to get their heat turned back on for 
the winter because they still owe money from last winter's bills.
  Another example is a single mother who lives with her baby daughter. 
She's a nurse, but she lost her job in August 2004 has been relying on 
temporary jobs since then.
  Her pay doesn't cover her bills, and her electricity has been cut 
off. She worries about how she can pay off her bills this winter.
  It is wrong for us to let people like this suffer. So how does the 
Republican leadership in Congress respond? By cutting funds for 
essential low income programs.
  In spite of Katrina, the administration and the House of 
Representatives continue to close their eyes to the long-term needs of 
the poor. Emergency aid was impossible for even the most hard-hearted 
Members of Congress to refuse. But as the spotlight fades it is back to 
poverty as usual. The House sent the Senate a continuing resolution 
which freezes funding for the LIHEAP program. But that funding 
obviously isn't enough. Nineteen percent of current LIHEAP recipients 
say they keep their home at a temperature they feel is unsafe or 
unhealthy. Eight percent report that their electricity or gas was shut 
off in the past year for nonpayment.
  The continuing resolution also cut the Community Services Block Grant 
by 50 percent. These funds are used by many community action agencies 
to administer the LIHEAP assistance.
  According to ABCD, a community action agency in Massachusetts whose 
neighborhood network handles the outreach and application process for 
LIHEAP, the cut in funding means that access to this critical survival 
resource will shrink by more than 70 percent. Up to 10,500 households, 
out of a current total of 15,000 recipients, may not get their 
benefits.
  Those of us in Congress who care about this issue sent an urgent 
request to the President to increase the funds, but our request has 
gone unanswered.
  We are here today to say that LIHEAP may not be on the 
administration's agenda, but it is on our agenda. That is why we are 
fighting so hard to increase LIHEAP funding. Senator Kerry and I 
offered an amendment on the DOD Appropriations bill to increase LIHEAP 
funding by $3.1 billion.
  Almost every Democratic Senator voted for it, but the Republican 
Senators overwhelmingly opposed it and it was defeated. We will 
continue to raise this issue again and again and again, until our 
Nation's neediest families are fully protected this winter.
  So I strongly support Senator Reed's and Senator Collins' amendment 
to this appropriations bill, and I hope the Republican leadership will 
allow us to have an up or down vote on this amendment at some point 
during this debate.
  Congress needs to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling 
to make ends meet. We need to tell low-income families across the 
country that we heard them, we care about them, and we don't intend to 
leave them shivering in the cold this winter.
  LIHEAP is indispensable in filling that need. It is wrong for 
Congress to shortchange LIHEAP and the millions of families who need 
our help the most. Until every parent has a warm place to come home to 
every day, and every child has a warm bed to sleep in every night, our 
job is not done.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment to 
enhance the Free File Alliance. The Free File Alliance is a partnership 
between the Internal Revenue Service and the private technology 
industry.
  This voluntary program was created in 2002 after the IRS tried to 
create its own tax preparation software and e-filing program at the 
taxpayers' expense. Such a program would have needlessly duplicated the 
resources and investments of the private sector. Instead, the Free File 
Alliance came into being, helping preserve voluntary compliance.
  This Alliance provides free electronic tax preparation and e-filing 
services to lower income, disadvantaged and underserved taxpayers. In 
its first 3 years of existence, the Free File Alliance has donated some 
10 million tax returns to American taxpayers and has helped 
significantly increase the number of e-filed tax returns. The success 
of this unique public-private partnership has been achieved at no cost 
to the taxpayers.
  This alliance has benefited the American public. It has allowed the 
IRS to focus its resources and efforts on its congressionally 
authorized mission and objectives. The budget simply does not have room 
for waste or duplication, and the Free File public-private partnership 
has met an urgent need in the most cost-effective way possible.
  There are long-standing program management issues that need to be 
corrected in the IRS oversight of the Free File program. For the first 
3 years, the Service failed to make necessary management reforms. 
Congress has provided specific direction in terms of taxpayer 
protections, but the needed reforms have still not been put in place.

[[Page 23199]]

  This amendment is fully consistent with all of the previous 
Congressional direction. It provides that the IRS and the Department of 
Treasury do not waiver from this direction. It will also ensure that 
the IRS does not provide all aspects of tax functions, including tax 
preparation services. That kind of conflict of interest cannot ever be 
permitted. The American people expect us to look out for their 
interests in such matters, to ensure fairness and balance in the 
system, and to protect their rights to voluntary compliance.
  This amendment and accompanying report language should get the Free 
File program on track to achieve its intended purposes and objectives, 
and ensure that the IRS keeps its energies and resources focused on 
critical core missions, rather than spending precious public funds to 
try to expand them.
  This is a basic good government, taxpayer-focused measure, and I ask 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.


                            Notice of Intent

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the standing 
rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing of my intention to 
move to suspend Paragraph 4 of Rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to 
the Bill, H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations Bill, the following amendment: No. 
2143.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')

                          ____________________