Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pension conference report that the Senate recently voted on. I have long supported initiatives aimed at strengthening and protecting individuals' employer-sponsored retirement plans. Pension benefits are a critically important means of securing a measure of comfort and self-sufficiency for retirees, and we should do all we can to ensure that pension plans are secure and viable. The intent of the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, H.R. 3108, is to provide temporary pension relief to businesses whose pensions have been hurt as a result of the economic downturn that began about 3 years ago. Understanding that companies were in need of relief, in January, by a vote of 86 to 9, the Senate passed H.R. 3108, which provided relief to single-employer plans, steel companies, the airline industry, and multiemployer plans. I supported this legislation. Unfortunately, the pension bill was significantly weakened in conference, for no reason other than to single out multiemployer plans. In so doing, the conference report puts at risk 65,000 small businesses and their 9.5 million workers. To the best of my knowledge, more than 50,000 workers in Connecticut will be left without any relief under this conference report. Because of this exclusion, I was not able to support this conference report. There is no sound policy reason to not provide multiemployer plans with relief. It does not cost the Treasury any money. The weak economic conditions plaguing our country have adversely affected multiemployer plans no less than single-employer plans. Since multiemployer plans are overwhelmingly used by workers who belong to a labor union, the only conclusion that I can draw for why the Republican conferees would not want to provide relief to multiemployer plans is to penalize union workers and the small businesses that employ them. This is a regrettable and callous action by our Republican colleagues in this Chamber and the other Chamber. As we all know, conference reports cannot be amended. If they could, I would eagerly support an amendment to ensure that multiemployer plans are covered. This conference report primarily helps the Fortune 500 companies, which I am not against. In fact, that is one of the reasons I had supported the pension bill in January. I understand that employers across the country have faced extraordinary pension liabilities based upon the obsolete Treasury bond rate. And I supported providing these plans with relief. But the conference report leaves behind our small businesses. It excludes our construction workers, electricians, plumbers, service workers, and others, and I cannot pretend that that is OK. This bill was supposed to be about maintaining the viability of pension plans, about doing what is right for our workers and their families, and for our small businesses. Instead, it unfairly left out thousands of our small businesses and millions of our workers, for no good reason. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that multiemployer plans are provided with relief so that we also can ensure the viability of these important plans.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know that all of my colleagues have been reading the recent reports of increasing violence in Iraq. What once seemed to be a small insurgency could possibly be developing into a larger revolt. And this rapidly growing and violent opposition to the United States presence in that country is placing American service members at great risk. It is also threatening our goal of securing a stable and democratic Iraq. Taken together, I believe that this situation makes it all the more clear what many of us have been urging all along--that we need to internationalize our efforts in Iraq now. Today, I am submitting a Sense of the Senate resolution urging the President to do just that. As my colleagues know, there are well over 100,000 United States servicemen and -women currently stationed in Iraq. And while our troops are going through rotations that are scheduled to leave this number somewhere around 100,000, I would point out that the recent upsurge in violence in that country has prompted U.S. Central Command Chief General John Abizaid to ask his military staff to examine options for sending more U.S. troops to Iraq. Despite claims by some in the Bush administration that this is not a necessity, it is certain that with this increasing instability, the demands on our troops will continue to grow. That could very well mean that at some point we will need to send more troops to Iraq. This is all coming at a time when arguably, the dangers to our troops have never been greater. Twelve Marines were killed in a single day of hostile action last weekend. Four American contractors were brutally slain and mutilated last week. And the situation appears to be getting worse. Let me be clear. This is not a statement on the abilities of the United States military. Our troops--and I know there is complete consensus about this--have and continue to perform with the utmost professionalism, patriotism, and heroism. Nobody can dispute that. And this Senator, for one, remains committed to ensuring that they have every tool at their disposal, every resource that they need, to come home safely and as expeditiously as possible. My resolution, first and foremost, reaffirms these facts. But with more than 600 U.S. service members killed and more than 2,988 wounded since March 2003, the time has come for us to be honest about our needs in Iraq. We need an international security presence in that country. NATO would be the ideal body to provide such an international presence. It has played an important role in efforts to restore and maintain order in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. And plain and simple, the presence of international troops would reduce the risk to U.S. military personnel. My resolution would urge the President to instruct the Secretary of Defense to begin consultations with NATO with this goal in mind. My resolution would also urge the President to instruct the Secretary of State to begin consultations with the United Nations Security Council concerning a UN Security Council Resolution for Iraq. While NATO can help handle the security concerns in Iraq, we need a UN presence in that country with respect to efforts to build stable and democratic institutions. After all, let's be honest, we have a serious lack of international credibility for being in Iraq right now. This lack of credibility is impeding our abilities to secure our political goals in that country. It is preventing the international community from rallying behind us in our attempt to build a stable and democratic Iraq--a goal that we all share. And it is preventing us from gaining the legitimacy we need among average Iraqis which is so vital to the success of our efforts. Some might even argue that with the June 30th deadline approximately 12 weeks away, we are moving backwards in terms of our readiness to hand over control to an interim Transitional Iraqi Government. This fear was illustrated perfectly by an official from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in an article in today's New York Times. Let me quote from that article, which occurs in the context of allied and Iraqi security forces' loss of control in the southern Iraqi cities of Najaf and Kufa: ``An official in the occupation authority said Wednesday that . . . months of efforts to win over the population with civil projects and promises of jobs have failed with segments of the population.'' That same official was quoted in the article as saying that ``Six months of work is completely gone . . . there is nothing to show for it.'' According to the same article, ``government buildings, police stations, civil defense garrisons, and other police installations built up by Americans had been overrun and stripped bare'' in those cities. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. This all highlights an important fact--that without getting the legitimacy we need to function in Iraq, we will be lacking the most basic foundations for ensuring the success of our efforts--efforts for which we have already allocated more than $110 billion American taxpayer dollars. The answer for all of this is simple, and I believe that it has been from the beginning. We must engage NATO and the UN with the goal of their playing significant roles in Iraq. And we must do it now. NATO can help immensely with sharing the security burden. And a UN mandate will grant us the legitimacy we need to function in Iraq. It will also grant our long time allies, with whom we have been at odds over this war, the domestic legitimacy they need to play a part in building Iraq's future. We now have a choice. We can continue to argue whether these steps should have been taken before the war. Or, we can join together in urging these steps be taken now. Our men and women in uniform deserve it. The American taxpayer deserves it. The Iraqi people deserve it. And our national security and the security of the world deserve it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with a strong note of celebration in my voice on behalf of my small State. The presiding officer lives in the same region of the country I do, so I suspect there is a sense of collective regional pride as well. I am sorry my colleague Senator Lieberman isn't here. He will be here tomorrow. Today is a religious holiday, so he could not be in the Senate today. I am sorry he is not here on one level; but on another level, every time one of the University of Connecticut teams wins, he does the UCONN cheer on the floor of the Senate, which causes his senior colleague a significant degree of embarrassment. He knows this, and I think he enjoys doing it when I am here. So, the one piece of good news I have is I won't have to listen to that cheer tomorrow because I myself will be away tomorrow. I want to take a few minutes to recognize and celebrate a remarkable historical achievement that occurred both on Monday and Tuesday nights of this week. I speak of the men's and women's national collegiate basketball championships. Never before in history has a single university captured both of those titles in the same year, so my colleagues and others, I am sure, will understand the sense of pride we all feel in Connecticut for the tremendous historic accomplishments of these two wonderful teams--both the men's and women's teams. UCONN's achievement is stunning all the more because when you consider the previous four times in history a school sent both of its men's and women's teams to the Final Four in the same year, those schools failed to come away with so much as one national championship, let alone two in the same year. Let me briefly recognize both of these teams. While it is certainly a university-wide celebration over the accomplishments of both, each deserves a moment of special recognition for their achievement. I will begin with the men's team. Those who follow college basketball will recall on the cover of ``Sports Illustrated,'' the University of Connecticut men's team was predicted to win the national championship. They were the No. 1 ranked team in the country. Shortly thereafter, in November, they faced, ironically, a Georgia Tech team which handed them a rather significant defeat. Ironic I say because it was Georgia Tech that the University of Connecticut faced on Monday night for the national championship. All told, the UConn Huskies would lose six games all season. For most teams, that would be reason to celebrate, having won 33 games and losing 6. In the Huskies' case, with each loss, more and more people around the country began to doubt whether the University of Connecticut's team had what it would take to go on to win a national title. To make matters worse, throughout the season, the Huskies' outstanding center, Emeka Okafor, was troubled with a series of back injuries and spasms and was unable to play at his full measure of capability. He was certainly the heart and soul of the team. He scored points, grabbed rebounds, and blocked shots. He is the leader in the country in that last category. His accomplishments went far beyond his statistics. His mere presence on the floor was fundamentally enough to alter the game. He is that much of a leader. Even more impressive than Emeka's athletic credentials are his academic ones. We fail to promote academic success. Emeka Okafor is not only the No. 1 basketball player in the country, but he is also the Big East Scholar-Athlete of the Year and the National Academic All-American of the year. While he was putting up impressive numbers on the basketball court, Emeka was an all-star in the classroom as well. He earned his degree in finance in 3 years with a GPA in excess of 3.8. A lesser team might have given up hope after losing a player of Emeka Okafor's ability, but a pivotal series was the Big East Tournament where he had to sit out two games. Ben Gordon, a very talented guard for the University of Connecticut, took over the leadership role, along with Rashad Anderson, Taliek Brown, and others. They went on to win six straight games and capture the national title. One of the most important games, of course, was the Saturday night game in which by a margin of 1 point, UConn defeated the Blue Devils--a very heated rivalry going back a number of years--facing a remarkable Duke team under the leadership of Mike Krzyzewski. We are all very appreciative of his abilities and the teams he put together, but beating Duke has a special significance in the UConn-Duke rivalry. We are very proud of the men's team. They had a terrific season. They certainly deserve some special recognition. Jim Calhoun, who is a good personal friend of mine--I am very proud of Jim's accomplishments. My only regret is that on Monday he was not selected to be in the Hall of Fame. I think he deserved it. If it was up to my vote, he would have had it. His accomplishments over the years, both at Northeastern and the University of Connecticut, more than qualify him for a special place in the Basketball Hall of Fame. Being only one of three active coaches at the collegial level to have won two national championships, Jim Calhoun deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame. I am confident he will get one soon. I am sorry it did not occur on the day he won another championship, on Monday. My congratulations to Jim for a wonderful season, a great leadership on that team. His assistant coaches, Tom Moore, George Blaney, and Clyde Vaughan--good friends of mine--and the players, Rashad Anderson, Hilton Armstrong, Jason Baisch, Josh Boone, Denham Brown, Taliek Brown, Justin Evanovich, Ben Gordon, Ed Nelson, I mentioned Emeka Okafor, Ryan Swaller, Ryan Thompson, Shamon Tooles, Charlie Villanueva, Marcus White, and Marcus Williams, all made significant accomplishments. The women's team, of course, was also a great success. This is the third consecutive national championship they have won, really a remarkable record only having been achieved once before, ironically, by the Tennessee team they defeated last evening under the leadership of Pat Summitt. Over the past decade or so, the UConn women's basketball team has become synonymous with excellence across the country. The numbers they have piled up are rather staggering: 5 national titles, 8 appearances in the Final Four, and a record winning streak of 70 consecutive games. Over the same period of time, women's basketball in America has experienced an enormous surge in popularity, and the University of Connecticut women are a major reason why. They have been an inspiration to young girls all across our Nation who dream of being basketball stars. Their combination of athletic skills, academic excellence, and good sportsmanship have made them role models for young men and young women across the country. Things did not come easily for this women's team this year. Much like the men's team, the women's team had a tough run in the early days. On January 3, they lost a heartbreaker to Duke by 1 point. It was their first home loss in 4 years. For the second straight year, they were eliminated in the Big East Tournament. This year, when the seedings were announced for the NCAA Tournament, UConn received the No. 2 seed, meaning they were not even favored to make it to the Final Four. But as they have done so many times in the past, this wonderful team of talented young women exceeded all expectations. They were led, once again, by the outstanding All-American senior, Diana Taurasi, the National Player of the Year. She is a remarkable athlete, a remarkable person, not unlike Emeka Okafor. She is a presence on the floor. Anyone who watched the game last evening, a wonderful game between Tennessee and the University of Connecticut, could see this remarkable young woman and the leadership she brought to her team. The team has gone 22-1 in tournament games under Diana Taurasi's storied career. She is only the fifth player to win two Naismith Player of the Year awards. She has scored the second most points of any player in the women's NCAA Tournament history. She was also named Outstanding Player of the Year in the Final Four. It was a great game last evening against Tennessee. It has been a wonderful rivalry. Unlike the University of Connecticut and Duke rivalry, the University of Connecticut and Tennessee rivalry is a great one. My friend from Tennessee, the majority leader, I point out very graciously, about 8:15 last evening, about 15 minutes prior to the UConn-Tennessee game, called and offered a polite wager. I am somewhat disturbed by it. I appreciate it. He offered to wager that if UConn won the game that he would supply me with as many spareribs as I could eat. For a heart surgeon, who happens to be the majority leader, to offer a Democratic member of the Chamber a pile of spareribs makes me wonder what his ultimate goal may have been in that wager. I have won the wager. I offered him a high protein, very low caloric Connecticut River shad, of which the Presiding Officer is well aware. The Connecticut River provides a border of his State. Connecticut River shad is high in protein, low caloric, the kind of proposal one would think a heart surgeon would propose. No, he offered spareribs--thick, juicy, fat-loaded spareribs--for this senior Senator from Connecticut to consume. I will share those with any good Republicans I can find in my State as part of those winnings. I conclude by congratulating the women's coach Geno Auriemma, who is a wonderful friend, as well as Jim Calhoun. He has had a wonderful career at the University of Connecticut, and has been a wonderful role model for players, coaches, and others. He is very active in our State, as is Jim Calhoun. It goes beyond their leadership of the basketball programs. He is very active in philanthropic programs throughout our State, and is always willing to appear at various events on behalf of worthy causes. My congratulations to Geno Auriemma for the terrific job he has done, his assistant coaches, Chris Dailey, a wonderful assistant coach over the years, Tonya Cardoza, and Jamelle Elliott. And the players: I mentioned Diana Taurasi, Ashley Valley, Kiana Robinson, Maria Conlon from Derby, CT, Stacey Marron, Morgan Valley, Nicole Wolff, Ashley Battle, Willnett Crockett, Jessica Moore, Barbara Turner, Liz Sherwood, and Ann Strother. Ann played a wonderful game last night, as did Maria Conlon, and also the forwards on that team, Barbara Turner and Willnett Crockett, were terrific as well. Congratulations to these two great teams. I have taken a longer time. When you have two national champions at the same university in the same year, I hope my colleagues will accept my apologies for taking more time than would normally be the case. We have to export our sport allegiance. We have no professional teams in my State. As my colleague knows, in Connecticut you can almost tell where somebody lives by asking them whether they are a Red Sox or a Yankee fan, a Rangers or Bruin fan, a Knicks or Celtics fan. Connecticut is equally divided in its sports allegiance. So all my life I have had to embrace teams outside of my own State. This wonderful collegiate athletic performance by the University of Connecticut has given us a wonderful sense of pride in our State. In the midst of otherwise bad news coming out of other parts of the world, I thought I would offer this tidbit of good news from a small corner of our country called Connecticut, with great pride for these wonderful athletes and their coaches, and fans at the University of Connecticut and throughout our State. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, and I appreciate the comments and give congratulations, the Minnesota women's team is a great team. In fact, a mutual friend of ours, a former member of the other body and I, Rick Nolan, who my colleague knows very well, talked the other night, and after the game he told me that Geno Auriemma, coach of the women's team, was quoted extensively in the Minnesota newspapers and radio stations on commending the Minnesota team. He said it reminded him very much of an earlier UConn women's basketball team when they were starting out. I cannot tell the Senator how impressed I was with Miss Whalen and Miss McCarville. They are great players. I love their tenacity and emotion. Your coaches--you have had three coaches in 3 years--have had some difficult times to go through. I thought the game between Minnesota and Duke was one of the great women's basketball teams of all time. I suspect we are going to hear a lot more from Minnesota not only in hockey but in basketball as well. I am glad my colleague mentioned title IX. I meant to mention it as well. Back in January, I invited a former colleague of ours, Birch Bayh of Indiana, to come to Connecticut to a women's basketball game. The reason I invited our former colleague and the father of our present colleague, Evan Bayh, was because in 1972, Birch Bayh was the author of title IX. There were a lot of other Members involved; I do not want to suggest he was the only one, but he was the principal author of title IX. I thought he might like to come and watch what a change he had made in America. It was not solely because of Birch Bayh, but he certainly deserves to be recognized for authoring that bill. To give my colleague some idea, about 15 years ago a national championship game for the women's basketball game drew maybe 1,500 people. Last night, there were 19,000 people in New Orleans to watch the game. I suspect millions across the country were tuned in to watch Tennessee and the University of Connecticut play. So we brought Birch Bayh to Connecticut on that day when the University of Connecticut was playing Notre Dame. We had about 15,000 people on hand that afternoon, and at halftime we had some of the leaders of the women's teams over the years. We had a group of younger women just starting out at center court. Birch Bayh received a standing ovation from 15,000 people in Connecticut because he made a difference in this sport. As my colleague has said, to see fathers and daughters, fathers and granddaughters, young boys and sisters coming to watch these young, remarkable women athletes, created a change in our country for the better. I look forward to the day when we will gather at the White House--I am confident President Bush will do this again because of his great love of sport--when he invites the men's and women's basketball teams from the University of Connecticut. Let me go on record today inviting, as well, not only the women's hockey team from Minnesota but the men's hockey team from Minnesota. I thank my colleague for his nice compliments about Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I add my voice as well to my seatmate, if I may. I sit in this chair by choice. Senator Byrd sits in his chair by choice as well, but he makes the choice before I do. I wanted to find out where he was going to sit so I could sit next to him. I did that because I wanted to sit next to the best, to learn everything I possibly could about the ability of this institution to provide the kind of leadership I think the country expects of us. Several thoughts come to mind. This is a day of obvious significance in the number of votes that have been cast, 17,000, but it is far more important to talk about quality than quantity. Quantity is not an insignificant achievement, but the quality of my colleague and friend's service is what I think about when the name Robert C. Byrd comes to my mind. I carry with me every single day, 7 days a week, a rather threadbare copy of the United States Constitution given to me many years ago--I can't even read it well now; it is so worn out--I may need a new copy-- given to me by my seatmate, Robert C. Byrd. I revere it. I tell people why I carry it because it reminds me of the incredible gift given to me by the people of Connecticut to serve in this Chamber, to remind me of the importance of an oath we all made, and that is to do everything we can to preserve, protect, and defend the principles upon which this Nation was founded. Robert C. Byrd, in my mind, is the embodiment of that goal. It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true. I join my colleagues in thanking the Senator from West Virginia for the privilege of serving with him. He has now had to endure two members of my family as colleagues. Senator Byrd was elected to the Senate in 1958 along with my father. He served with my father in the House. I have now had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd for 24 years, twice the length of service of my father. That is an awful lot of time to put up with members of the Dodd family. We thank Senator Byrd for his endurance through all of that time. There is no one I admire more, there is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter. I echo the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts. If I had to pick out any particular point of service for which I admire the Senator most, it is his unyielding defense of the Constitution. All matters come and go. We cast votes on such a variety of issues, but Senator Byrd's determination to defend and protect this document which serves as our rudder as we sail through the most difficult of waters is something that I admire beyond all else. I join in this moment in saying: Thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship, and I look forward to many more years of sitting next to you on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Today, on the 77th anniversary of his birth, people across America will pay tribute to a remarkable man, Cesar Estrada Chavez. I had the honor of meeting Cesar Chavez. No one was a more powerful or more passionate advocate for the men, women, and children who work on farms throughout this country. It's easy for Americans to forget that the food they eat doesn't magically appear on a supermarket shelf. Every bunch of grapes, every box of cereal, every can of corn represents the labor for real human beings--so many of whom come to this country in search of a better life, but instead find low wages, poor housing, and substandard working conditions. Cesar Chavez didn't just know about this struggle. He and his family lived it. He grew up moving from town to town and from school to school while his father worked in the fields. He himself became a farm worker as soon as he finished the eighth grade. Born out of his sweat and toil was a fierce determination to give a voice to people like him and his family who labored so hard and received so little in return. Chavez became one of America's most well-known, beloved, and effective labor leaders. As the founder and leader of United Farm Workers of America, Chavez shed light on the shameful treatment of farm workers in our country. He led boycotts and marches. He helped register voters. He went on hunger strikes. And he united workers across America with a simple, yet powerful, message: ``Si se puede''--``Yes we can.'' Ceasr Chavez represented farm workers. But the priorities he fought for are America's priorities: Better pay and benefits for workers. Better education for children. Expanded civil rights for minorities. All working Americans today owe a debt of gratitude to this outstanding individual. Of course, Chavez's work is not done. There is still a great deal we can do to help to create a better life for working Americans, especially those who work on farms. One thing we can do right now is pass the bipartisan AgJOBS bill, which I'm proud to consponsor. This bill, sponsored by my colleagues Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy, would give many hard-working nonimmigrant farm workers a chance to obtain legal status. This bill is the right thing to for these workers. And by increasing the number of legal farm workers, it's the smart thing to do for our economy. This legislation has the support of agricultural businesses, labor unions, as well as immigrant and civil rights groups. It deserves to become law. But there is so much more we can and should do to make America a land where each and every person receives respect and opportunity. We can extend a helping hand to the children of nonimmigrant workers--by passing the DREAM Act to help those children get a college education. We can give every child in this country a chance at success--by making a real commitment to our public schools. We can ensure that a job in America is truly a gateway to a better life--by raising the minimum wage and making it a fair and living wage. And we can make access to health care a right--not a privilege--for every man, woman, and child in America. By perpetuating his legacy, we will truly be honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. Let us continue his commitment to achieving basic rights and dignity for all American workers. And let us use his vision as a guide as we strive to build a better tomorrow for all Americans.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are three or four of us here. Maybe we should make a unanimous consent request. I plan on taking about 15 minutes. I would ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 15 minutes. My colleague from Texas was next on the floor. I don't know how much time he would request, and then I know our colleagues from Wisconsin and from Delaware are here as well. Maybe we could set up a process so we will have predictability to proceed. May I ask my colleague how much time he would like?

Mr. DODD. And the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. DODD. And my colleague from Delaware?

Mr. DODD. Absolutely. Even more.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague from Iowa yield--maybe we can work out a sequence. I know the Senator from Texas has some comments. I presume others do, too----

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Texas be recognized for 15 minutes, the Senator from Wisconsin be recognized for 20 minutes, and the Senator from Delaware for 15 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield before she yields the floor?

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague from Washington. She has talked about this on numerous occasions. Again, she has very eloquently laid out a very thoughtful argument about exactly the problems which exist across the country when it comes to job creation. As someone who has spent an earlier part of her life in the private sector--very successfully, I might add--she brings a very special knowledge and awareness to these issues and this debate and discussion. I wonder if my colleague has seen the most recent statistics. In fact, they were released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I do not believe my colleague referenced them, but they illustrate the point she is making. According to them: As of February 2004, 35 states have failed to get back to their pre-recession employment levels. Furthermore, 49 states have not created enough jobs to keep up with the natural growth in the number of potential workers, as job growth has lagged in working-age population since March 2001. As for the unemployed, 43 states have higher unemployment rates than when the recession began. And, lastly, they go in and point out a projected job creation of 306,000 jobs per month. Obviously, we are way off those numbers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not have a political ax to grind at all--national job creation has fallen over two million jobs short of that pace. . . .job growth projected for the Bush Administration's economic plan has fallen short in 49 of the 50 states as of February 2004. Thirteen states have actually lost jobs since the Administration's tax cut was supposed to start creating job growth. I was not sure if my colleague was aware of those numbers. Don't they make the case even further? These are numbers released today, not going back 6 months. But they point out, once again, the sluggishness, to put it mildly, of job creation. I wonder if my colleague has any statement on that?

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield for one additional question. I heard the objection expressed by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. Does my colleague from Washington have any indication when we might get a chance to actually vote on this matter? I think there have been 90,000 people a week, if I am not mistaken, who exhausted their unemployment benefits--90,000 of our fellow citizens. Yet we cannot even get a vote on whether or not we can extend these benefits. Is there any indication my colleague has received or heard from the Republican leadership that we might get a chance to vote on whether we could extend these benefits?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Even 10.

Mr. DODD. I have no objection to that.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from Iowa leaves the floor, I want to express my gratitude to the Senator from Iowa, as I did yesterday, for his support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, and me on the childcare provisions. It was a significant vote: 78 to 20 was the final vote. Certainly, the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Iowa, was tremendously helpful in that regard. I wouldn't want him to leave without once again expressing my sincere appreciation for his support. I have always been treated well by him. We have served together now for almost three decades in the Congress, and we have always had a strong and good relationship with each other. I was disappointed by the position of the administration. To quote them from their bulletin: In considering this legislation, the administration would strongly oppose any amendment that increases funding for the Child Development Block Grant fund. ``Strongly oppose'' is an indication of how they fail to understand what I think the Senator from Iowa pointed out--certainly the Senator from Maine did--the critical transition that is necessary from welfare to work, particularly considering the jobs these people are able to get. Most of them are very low-wage jobs. Having a strong childcare component is the lifeboat that will get them from one side of the shore of this raging river to the other, the side of the shore from welfare dependency to work. If you cannot get across that gulf because you have young children, as many of these people do who are presently on welfare--trying to get to work, or those who work today barely holding on--then the likelihood they are going to succeed is very small. There was a strong vote in this Chamber yesterday to support the effort to provide the assistance for literally thousands of young children who are on waiting lists in 24 States that we know about, some 600,000 who will need that kind of assistance. I am terribly disappointed the administration strongly opposes childcare assistance. My hope is the position of this body will prevail in the conference, if we get there. I also want to comment briefly on the issue of the minimum wage. I thank our colleagues from California and Massachusetts who have raised it. The better description of this might be called a livable wage. We talk about the minimum wage, but what we are really looking for is a livable wage. It is a standard we have embraced for years. Administrations, regardless of party, have always embraced the idea of setting a floor of what ought to be a livable wage. It is hardly livable when you consider the poverty level for a family of three is $15,700 and we are talking about people making $10,700 a year working full time making minimum wage. That is $5,000 below the poverty level. I can't even imagine anywhere in the United States one could live today as a family of three with a gross income of $10,700. And that is what we are talking about. There are 34 million people who are living in poverty in the United States. In a nation of 280 million people, 12 million are children living in poverty. Obviously, we are not going to solve that problem simply by raising the minimum wage level, but we certainly want to give people a chance to be hired for a little more than $5 an hour in the 21st century. As we begin trying to move people from welfare to work so they at least have a chance, once they get that job, to hold on and then move into more independent living, they must be able to earn a livable wage. So I am terribly disappointed again that we have not been able to have a vote on this matter. I don't think it is terribly complicated. A livable wage in the United States, certainly in light of what happened since the last time we raised it, is in order--considering that every administration, from the most progressive to the most conservative, has found time and space in which to increase the minimum wage. This is one of the longest periods of time we have ever gone without increasing that. It has been 7 years since we have actually raised the minimum wage. During that same time, by the way, this body found room to increase our salaries six different times; six times we have raised our salaries. Yet, in 7 years, we have not increased the minimum wage. I have not objected to salary increases for Congress. I understand that. The point is, when we find time to debate and vote on matters that allow us on six different occasions to raise our salaries and not on one occasion have we been able to raise the minimum wage or the livable wage for people living in the levels of poverty they do, this is something I find rather distressing, to put it mildly. The great majority of welfare payments go to single mothers. Unfortunately, the kinds of jobs women leaving welfare find are often minimum wage jobs, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to sustain a family and meet the demands of raising children. Life is precarious for low-income people, particularly for single mothers raising children. In the U.S., regardless of whether they have been on welfare or not, for them, survival is a daily goal. If they work hard enough and their hours are long enough, maybe they can make ends meet, but only barely. They don't have time for their families because they are working tremendous hours, sometimes a couple of jobs to make ends meet. They are not buying homes, going on vacation, going to the theater, or symphonies, or buying extra clothes. They are trying to hold their families together. The idea of buying gifts for children, taking them on special trips, that is not part of the family's agenda if you are part of the 34 million people in this country living in poverty. We are trying to get that minimum wage after 7 years to a point that makes it possible to at least make it a little easier to meet the daily goal of survival. We must stop asking families to do it alone. They are working too many hours for too little pay. Often these children who are being raised in this environment are not entering our school system--particularly well prepared to learn. Talk to any teacher in any rural area where there is poverty, or to a teacher who works in our inner cities where poverty exists. Without exception, regardless of their politics, teachers will tell you children who are not getting the attention and time and care needed are starting their lives way behind. Ultimately, we pay a price in this country for that. I will not suggest to you the minimum wage solves all of those problems. But should we not in this great country, after 7 long years, provide an extra couple of dollars an hour so people might have a little bit more income to provide for their children. We need to help raise wages for these families so they can make ends meet and improve the quality of their lives. One of the best first steps is to ensure the work pays a fair, livable wage. The real value of the livable wage has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. The livable wage workers are being left further behind every year. Working families have waited long enough. Minimum wage employees work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and earn $10,700. That is if you work every week. Forget that 2 weeks vacation or even 1 week of vacation--you earn $10,700. This is the 21st century. In America, what community can you live in with a family of 3 on $10,700? I don't think you are going to find one. The poverty level is approximately $15,000 for a family of 3. We must raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour, and I think we can do it. Under the proposed bill, we go from $5.15 to $5.85 to, one year later, $6.45, and the year after that, to $7. That is what we are proposing. I suspect some negotiation might happen in order to get something done. But, we cannot even vote on the issue. Today, more than 34 million people live in poverty, including 12 million children. Among full-time, year-round workers poverty has doubled since the late 1970s, from 1.3 million then to 2.6 million in 2002. An unacceptably low minimum wage is a key part of the problem we are trying to solve. Every day the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose value and workers fall farther behind. Minimum wage workers have already lost all of the gains of the 1996- 1997 increase, 7 long years ago. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is more than $3 below what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the minimum wage would actually have to be closer to $8.50 an hour than to $5.15, which is where we are today. In the past 7 years, salaries of lawmakers have gone up by $23,400, giving ourselves 6 raises, while minimum wage workers continue to earn $10,700 a year. Nearly 7 million workers would directly benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase 35 percent are their family's sole earners and 61 percent are women. Almost one-third of those women are raising children. An increase to $7 an hour for a full-time, year-round worker would add $3,800 to their income. What does that buy? If you are living in affluence, not much. But $3,800 for a minimum wage worker and their families means buying more than a year of groceries; 9 months of rent; a year and a half of heat and electricity in their homes; or full tuition for a community college degree. I know there are those who object to this increase and believe it is going to slow economic growth in the country. That is not true. Ever since there has been a minimum wage increase, there has been no ill effect on economic growth in the country. I suggest by doing this, there is a greater likelihood we are going to keep people in the workforce--even if they are minimum wage jobs--and allow them to provide the bare survival needs of their families, so they don't fall back into a dependency situation of one kind or another. I think we all become winners if we give these people a chance to have a higher standard of living than that which they are presently getting with the $5.15 an hour wage. I know it is not the job of the chairman of the Finance Committee to set the agenda. But somebody has to set the agenda around here. We have been debating other issues of almost total irrelevancy. I guess at some point we are going to debate gay marriage. Well, that is a compelling issue for the vast majority of people who are trying to make ends meet. Or we will debate medical malpractice where you cannot even negotiate what comes out of it. We can debate whether the gun manufacturers ought to be excused from any liability. Heaven forbid we take an hour or two and debate whether we increase the minimum wage a few dollars more than $5.15 an hour. I will emphasize to you again $10,700. That is what the minimum wage provides today. I don't think anyone believes that is a condition or a circumstance, economically, in which you can expect a family of 3 to survive. You cannot make it, no matter how determined you are. I believe we ought to be able to take care of this issue and do it promptly. It would be a great piece of economic news for millions of Americans and not just for those living in poverty. I think for millions more who don't live in poverty and see people doing it every day there would be a sense of gratification that we are doing something for people. We are doing something for people who make the effort every day not to fall back into dependency, but to provide an opportunity for their families, to stay independent, become self-sufficient, and raise a family. I have often said that the best social program ever envisioned was a decent paying job. The second thing you and I ask a person we meet for the first time after their name is: What do you do? Everybody I have ever met wants to take pride in what they do. By giving people a livable wage, we allow them to be able to say to their children and families and neighbors: I do something. I have value. I have worth. Providing an additional $3,800 over 2 or 3 years is not asking too much. I would hope we could adopt the Boxer-Kennedy amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. I thank my Senator for his statement in support. As a former Governor, of course, he understands these issues from a State perspective, as well as cutbacks. I am particularly grateful for the mention of the gap that exists between the poorest children in this country and those who come from the more affluent families. The slight correction I make--even his number is startling--but the average middle class child is exposed to about 500,000 words by kindergarten; an economically disadvantaged child is exposed to half as many, at best. To put it in perspective. In a childcare setting where children, in the absence of parents who are working, can actually be in a place where they can learn, you may not close that gap entirely, but the gap of more than 100,000 words between those two children ought to startle every single American. I thank my colleague for raising that issue.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.