Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have 8 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. 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?

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 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.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have a consent request for a technical modification.

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. 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.

Mr. KENNEDY. That will disadvantage workers in 31 States. This is the wrong amendment for American workers and it should be defeated.

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. 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 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. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the pending business?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. This is a modification of our amendment which was to raise the minimum wage to $7.25. It seemed to me that in an attempt to try to find some common ground with our friends on the other side, we would modify this amendment to reflect what had been the position of the Republican side the last time we had the debate on the increase in the minimum wage and that was $1.10. There were other provisions in the Santorum amendment, but the overall figure that was included in the alternative amendment to my last amendment was $1.10. That is what this amendment effectively does. It says that in 6 months after enactment, we would have an increase in the minimum wage of 55 cents and then a year after another 55 cents. That would be the way it would be phased in over this period of time. I will not take a great deal of time again on the Senate floor to urge the consideration of the increase in the minimum wage. It has been 9 years. We have increased our own salaries some six times in that 9- year period. We have not increased the minimum wage. We know the total number of children who have fallen into poverty, the total number of families who have fallen into poverty, some 5 million Americans--5 million Americans have fallen into poverty during the Bush Administration. And we saw at the time of the Katrina tragedy the fact that so many of our fellow citizens have been left out and left behind, lost opportunity, and certainly lost income. As I have mentioned many times, the minimum wage applies to men and women of dignity. These are men and women who work hard, who try to do a job, try to take care of their children. More often than not, the minimum wage worker has two or even three jobs, and rarely has a chance to spend much time with their family. They are men and women of dignity. They are the men and women who clean the great buildings of American commerce. They are helpers to schoolteachers in the school districts around the country. They work in our nursing homes to look after our senior citizens who have in so many instances sacrificed to permit their children to have a better and a happier future. Now minimum wage workers are looking after our seniors who have done so much to make this country the great Nation that it is. So this is about men and women of dignity. That is the most important point. They should not be held back and should not be held down. We have seen that this has very substantial support, as it should. It has support in blue States and in red States. It is reflected in votes in Florida and also out West in Nevada in these last elections by a very substantial margin. This is basically a women's issue because 60 percent of those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase are women. More than one- third of those women have children. So it is a children's issue. It is a family issue. An increase in the minimum wage is a family issue. It is a children's issue. It is a women's issue. It is a civil rights issue because so many of the men and women who receive the minimum wage are men and women of color. Most of all, it is a fairness issue. If there is one thing the American people understand it is fairness. The American people believe that anyone who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should not have to live in poverty. This very small step is to try to address the needs and the well-being of these families. That is what this debate is really all about. As I have pointed out at other times, this has been bipartisan. I was here when President Ford supported an increase in the minimum wage. I was here when President Bush 1 supported an increase in the minimum wage. I have been here when we have had bipartisan support for this effort. This is an attempt now to basically move, as our amendment did, from $5.15 to $7.25, increase it 70 cents a year over a 3-year period to effectively cut that in half, to try to reach out to those on the other side. Hopefully we can accept this downpayment and let me give the assurance that it is just a downpayment and move forward. At the appropriate time, we will have a chance to go through some of the reasons for the increase. I will mention just a few now. I know some of our colleagues desire to speak at 5:15, and when they arrive I will yield the floor. I will just review what has happened since 2001: the increased cost of gasoline; health insurance; housing up 44 percent; increase in college tuition. Basically, the increases are making it prohibitive for families to be able to own cars or be able to afford health insurance. Housing has become prohibitive, and college tuition is out of sight. This is what has happened over the period of recent years, that more than 41 million Americans--that is 30 percent of our workforce--work more than 40 hours a week. Nearly 1 in 5 workers work more than 50 hours a week. Is that not extraordinary? When one looks at the fact of the work habits of the American workforce, 30 percent work more than 40 hours and 1 in 5 more than 50 hours. More than 7 million Americans are working 2 or more jobs, and 259,000 of them hold 2 full-time jobs. So Americans are working longer and they are working harder than any other industrial nation in the world. Productivity has increased dramatically over the period of these last years--from 1965 up to the present time, a 115-percent increase in productivity. So we have workers working longer and harder. We have seen an explosion in productivity, but it is not reflected in any increase in the minimum wage. That is troublesome. It should be. We have actually seen the purchasing power of the minimum wage decrease by some 31 percent. To give our colleagues some idea of what has happened to the minimum wage, we see the purchasing power of the minimum wage over the period of recent years. These are in real dollars, in 2004 dollars. It would have been close to $9 in 1965. Look how this has gradually declined to $5.15. We had proposed up to $7.25. Now it will just increase $1.10, so it will go to $6.25. This is what the issue is about, and we will have an opportunity to address it. We have been interested in getting a vote. We understand it is germane to the legislation. We only needed 50 votes to be able to pass this. We have had that in previous votes, but we have been unable to get the consideration for it. In an attempt to move this debate on the minimum wage forward, we have made this very significant--and it is very significant--adjustment and change in this proposal. Hopefully this will result in the willingness to accept it and the beginning of the process to make sure many families will be treated more fairly and equitably in the future. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to withhold that request? I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized after we come out of the quorum call.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this amendment and to the opportunity for the Senate to be able to express itself on the issue of increasing the minimum wage for the working families of this country. It has not been increased now for some 9 years. We have not increased the minimum wage for some 9 years. There will be those who will ask: Why are we thinking about increasing the minimum wage on this legislation? We have tried to get stand-alone legislation so that it could be considered. We have been unable to do that. We have been unable to get another vote on an increase in the minimum wage over these period of years. In this particular appropriations bill, there is another amendment dealing with the increase in salaries for Members of the Senate. This will be the seventh increase we have had in 9 years, but we have not had an increase in the minimum wage over that same period of time. It does seem to me that there is a certain amount of equity, a certain amount of justice, a certain amount of fairness when we are talking about an increase in the salaries or the cost of living for Members of the Senate. We certainly ought to be considerate of the interests of those who have been left behind by the failure of Congress to support the increase in the minimum wage. Who are the minimum wage workers? The minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity, first of all. These are men and women who work hard, play by the rules, are trying to provide for their families, trying to look out for their children, and trying to look after a parent. We know these are men and women who work in nursing homes and are looking after senior citizens, men and women who have contributed so much to this Nation, who have sacrificed greatly for this Nation by more often than not subverting their own kinds of interests and their own futures to the benefit of their children. Now, during their golden years, they need some help and assistance, and many of those who work and assist the elderly people in nursing homes are men and women who earn a minimum wage. Who else are they? They are the men and women who clean the great buildings of American commerce every evening, hard working, going around and cleaning out those buildings. They are men and women of dignity. They want to do a decent job, and they do a decent job. They need to have a decent pay. Many of them are workers working in schools as teachers' assistants, as teachers' aides. These are men and women who are working with seniors, who have made great contributions to our Nation. They are men and women who are working with children who are attempting to get an education. They are working part time or even full time as teachers' assistants. Primarily, this is an issue involving women because 60 percent of those who would benefit from this legislation are women. More than one third of the women who are receiving the minimum wage have children. So an increase in the minimum wage is a women's issue, and since so many of the women who receive the minimum wage have children, it is a children's issue. It is a women's issue, and it is a children's issue. It is also a civil rights issue because 35 percent of those who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage are men and women of color. So it is a children's issue. It is a women's issue. It is a family issue. We hear a great deal in this body about family issues, about family responsibilities, family obligations. These are men and women who are earning the minimum wage and who are trying to provide for their families on that minimum wage. They know they cannot do it. So they have one or two or even three minimum wage jobs. How much time do they have with their children? They are trying to provide for their children but have no time to spend with them. I will give real stories of what families are going through, the sacrifices they have made, the lost opportunities, the conversations they were not able to have with their children, the missed birthdays that come and go, the Christmases that come and go and they do not have that gift for that child or they do not have those pairs of skates so the children can join other children. The fact is that hard-working men and women in this country have not gotten a raise in 9 years, and yet we in the Senate are adjusting our salaries to inflation effectively for the seventh time in the ninth year. So we have a women's issue, a children's issue, a family issue, a civil rights issue, and most of all it is a fairness issue. Americans understand fairness. Americans understand that if a person works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year, they should not have to live in poverty, and these men and women are living in poverty. All we are trying to do is what we have done many times in the past. This has not been a partisan issue. It has only been in recent years that it has been a partisan issue. If we look at this chart, we will see that over the period of the years when there was the first minimum wage, going back to 1938, it was 25 cents. There was President Roosevelt, then Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower increased the minimum wage. Democrats and Republicans. President Kennedy increased the minimum wage. So did President Johnson increase the minimum wage. Then President Eisenhower, President Ford, then President Carter, then Bush 1, President Bush, increased the minimum wage, and then President Clinton. So Republicans as well as Democrats have fought for an increase in the minimum wage, although over the period of these last years, that has not been the case. Every time we have tried for an increase in the minimum wage, we have been opposed by a Republican administration and by the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate. That is not fair. It is time we altered and changed that. It is appropriate that we take a moment or two to look at what has been happening in our country: Americans struggling to survive in this economy, in what we call the Bush economy. Too many Americans are living in poverty. We have 1 in every 10 families living in poverty. One out of every five children in the United States now, one out of every five Hispanic Americans, one out of every four African Americans, is now living in poverty in the United States. If we look at the overall figures from years 2000 to 2004, 5.4 million more Americans are living in poverty today than were living in poverty in the year 2000. An increase in the minimum wage is not going to solve all of these problems, but it is going to help 15 to 16 million Americans become better off in regard to their economic condition to some extent. Let us take a look at what has happened to the minimum wage over the period of recent years. This is the 2004 Federal poverty line. This red line indicates the minimum wage. Going back to the early 1960s, we saw that the minimum wage even exceeded the poverty wage. This is constant purchasing dollars. This is in constant real dollars. We saw an increase even above the poverty line. Then it bounced around just around the poverty line, and then we have seen now what has happened in recent times where the real minimum wage has fallen so far from the poverty line. Most Americans believe if one is going to work and work hard, they should not have to live in poverty, but this is what is happening in the United States over the period of the recent years. The total number of individuals who have fallen into poverty has increased significantly because of the failure of Congress to deal with any kind of increase in the minimum wage. The amendment I have offered is a three-phase increase. It provides for an increase of 70 cents 60 days after it is signed, 70 cents a year after, and 70 cents a year after, from $5.15 to $7.25. It will put the minimum wage up to this level, which it will still be well below what it was in the 1960s through the 1970s and even up to the 1980s. It will certainly not recover all of its purchasing power, but it will make a very serious and important difference to millions of Americans. For anybody who is viewing this discussion this evening, this chart is self-evident. What has been happening is an increased pressure on families' pocketbooks, which has virtually soared since the year 2001. We find gasoline has increased some 71 percent; health insurance up 59 percent; housing up 44 percent; college tuition up 35 percent. These are basics. If they can afford a car to be able to drive, or even participate in a car pool, we see the explosion in gasoline prices in spite of an Energy bill we passed here which did virtually nothing on this issue. We continue to see the escalation of health care costs, housing has gone up, and college tuition. All this has gone up. What has not gone up is the minimum wage. This chart shows what an average family is up against. The average costs for a family for health insurance premiums per year now is up to $10,880. If you look at the salary of a full-time, minimum-wage worker, it is $10,700. You wonder how in the world can they even afford one coverage, which is so important to families, which is to be able to provide health coverage. Of course they cannot afford it, and so they do without it. In some States, they get some protection from some of the safety net programs, but we have seen the increasing pressure on those safety net programs in recent years. What would $4,400 mean, which is what it would be when the minimum wage is fully implemented? What would that mean? We have been encouraged by the living wage campaigns that have taken place in communities all over this country. They have taken place in Boston. They have taken place in Cambridge, MA, and other communities in my State. They have taken place in Baltimore and in many other cities--in Los Angeles. And they have made a real difference. It has made a real difference in the quality of life for people. In many of those instances when they go to a living wage, they go up to $12 or $14 an hour. We are only increasing this to $7.25. So we are going to be well behind the living wage that has been accepted overwhelmingly. We know when it has been on the ballot in the States of Nevada and Florida, it has been passed overwhelmingly by the people in those States. People have overwhelmingly, when they have addressed this in all parts of the country, supported an increase. The only people who have not supported it have been the Republican leadership. We are going to give them an opportunity to address this issue on this legislation. This is what it provides. The $4,400 increase means almost 2 years of child care, full tuition for a community college, a year and a half of heat and electricity--maybe not after this winter, when we are finding out in my part of the country on the natural gas bill they expect to have an increase of some 70 percent in the cost of heating oil and natural gas, but we know it would make an important difference in those terms--and more than a year of groceries or more than 9 months of rent. Does this sound very excessive to those who believe we are already doing what we should for some of the most hard-working Americans? This chart is enormously important. Although it doesn't reflect the human dimension of what families are faced with or what a difference in the minimum wage will mean, what it does do is show what has happened in relation to increased productivity. What does that mean? It means the production levels workers have been able to achieve. What we have seen over a period of years--this chart goes back to the 1960s. If you look at the minimum wage even prior to that time, an increase in the minimum wage has always reflected an increase in productivity. It makes sense. That is the best way to answer people who say this is going to be inflationary. It is not when you are increasing productivity. This is what had happened. We had always seen the minimum wage had been kept slightly higher than productivity in the 1960s and going into the 1970s. Now what we see is productivity is up 155 percent over 45 years ago. What we have seen is the decline of the minimum wage. This includes the increase in the minimum wage that we had during the 1990s. We see the extraordinary decline. We have not seen the minimum wage go up to reflect the increase in productivity. We have seen the minimum wage go down, in spite of the increase in productivity. We have workers working longer, working harder, being more productive. They are working longer hours. They are working many more months of the year than any other worker in the world--American workers. American workers are. We will have a chance to show that tomorrow, the comparison between American workers and other workers. We have American workers working longer, working harder, being more productive, and you would think the increase in the minimum wage would reflect it, right? Wrong. We do not see that increase reflected. This chart shows again, all of these indicators, that the purchasing power of the minimum wage has collapsed over the last 50 years. The minimum wage now is the lowest in over 50 years compared to average wages. For years the minimum wage was reflective of what the average wage was. They tried to keep it about 56 to 60 percent, that was the desire for years for the minimum wage. But look what has happened. This is another indicator. The minimum wage is now 32 percent of the average wages for American workers. Look at the decline. We are talking about a segment of our society. We are talking about a segment of Americans. It is all reflected in this--when we had the Hurricane Katrina, when we saw so many millions of Americans who had been left behind in opportunity, and they are getting short shrift in their wages. These are millions of Americans who are left behind, and that is reflected by the fact that the number of Americans living in poverty has increased. We have some indication of what has happened as the minimum wage remained stagnant over this period of time. We see Members of Congress have had an increase in salary of $31,600. People will have to answer to that, whether they are going to vote themselves a pay increase and vote down an increase in the minimum wage. That will be the issue that will be before the Members. That is why this particular measure is of so much importance. We will have a chance to go through this in greater detail. This issue is most of all about fairness for American workers. We know there will be about 7\1/2\ million Americans who will be affected by the increase in the minimum wage. The ripple effect on the wages of others of low income is expected to effectively double that. We are talking about impacting more than 15 million Americans--some obviously more than others. But we are talking about whether we are going to be one country with one history and one destiny and whether this institution is going to increase the minimum wage and try to begin to catch up for so many we have left behind. We will take the opportunity tomorrow. Some will come out and refute this with the old arguments that this will be bad for the economy. This will be bad for the economy because it will have a inflationary effect on the economy. Let me show what this is, in terms of the economy. All Americans combined earn $5.4 trillion a year. This is all Americans. Increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 is vital to workers but a drop in the bucket in the national payroll. All Americans combined earn $5.4 trillion. An increase to $7.25 would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the national payroll, one-fifth of 1 percent. I hope our friends on the other side who say this is going to be an inflator, we are suffering difficult economic times now--all of which are true--will let me point out that this is one-fifth of 1 percent of national payroll. They will say that this is going to be an inflator? This doesn't hold. We have seen in Great Britain they have increased their minimum wage to $8.85 3 weeks ago. They increased it to $8.85, and they have provisionally accepted a plan to go up to $9.37 next year. If you asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the adverse impact in terms of the British economy, he said: It has been good for the economy. It has been healthy for the economy. We have moved a million children out of poverty. We have moved families out of poverty. People are spending and investing and it has strengthened our economy. We will have an opportunity to go through the traditional arguments: We can't afford this because it is an inflator. I hope our friends on the other side will be able to respond to that. They will also say this is going to mean job losses. We have gone through that time in and time out. We will have the charts to show at the times that we have increased the minimum wage it has actually meant increasing employment. That certainly has been true in more recent times that we have done it, and we have the charts to reflect that. Then we will hear this is a decent idea but it only goes to--we should just have a training wage. We should not. We have already had that kind of debate and discussion. Those are all arguments we are going to hear from the other side. Basically, they are rooted in the concept they do not believe that men and women who work hard, men and women of dignity, that they are entitled even to a fair day's pay. We are not, even with the increase of the minimum wage, able to reach the poverty line for these millions of Americans. It does seem to me with all the things we have seen in this country in the most recent times, when we peeled back the veil of the American society, as had been done in Katrina and Rita, and we saw who was out there and who was adversely impacted, Americans said, Oh, my goodness, why have so many people been left out? Why have so many people been left behind? This increase in the minimum wage is not going to solve all of their problems. It will not. But it will make an important difference to more than 15 million Americans who are hard working, trying to make ends meet, playing by the rules, looking out after their families. They certainly deserve this increase, particularly if we intend to increase the salaries for Members of the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when I last spoke on the Senate floor about Hurricane Katrina, I spoke of my visit to the region--to Louisiana and Mississippi--where I witnessed first hand the devastation to these communities. Entire blocks were left bare to their foundations where families once lived. Schools and hospitals were destroyed. Power lines were draped over fallen trees and there was water everywhere. Roads were washed out and bridges were destroyed. Much of the great city of New Orleans was under water. It was beyond what any of us could have imagined. Seeing the Gulf Coast in such a state has deeply touched me and my family in deeply personal ways. My wife Vicki and her strong and wonderful family are from Louisiana. She went to school in Louisiana, attending Tulane University, and considers New Orleans her second home. It has now been more than a month since Hurricane Katrina first hit the Gulf Coast. Hurricane Rita wreaked further havoc on the region. And although the emergency phase of the response may be over, we now face the extraordinary challenge of rebuilding this region and restoring people's lives. Relief workers and agencies have been working tirelessly to clear debris, and connect evacuees to services and temporary housing. Just this week, New Orleans has finally been drained of all water left standing in the city. Health workers are working to address the public health challenges and the ongoing health needs of the evacuees. And States across the country continue to work with evacuees in their area to help them with housing, jobs and services. Relief and recovery efforts have revealed that we have our work cut out for us. Thousands of homes were destroyed and more have water marks to the ceilings, mold and severe structural damage are everywhere. Entire schools and hospitals must be rebuilt. Roads and bridges that were washed out must be replaced. Museums with artifacts of the rich cultural tradition of the region have been damaged. Much of what has made these cities and towns vibrant has been destroyed and kept residents away from their beloved communities. We need to make these communities whole again. We need to make them stronger and healthier. We need to build the roads and bridges that will bring the many evacuees home to quality, permanent homes, and get their children back to their schools. We must rebuild the region thoughtfully and swiftly. We owe it to the residents of the region who want to come home. And we owe it to the thousands of relief workers, charities, and businesses that have come together to make the region and its residents safe and secure. It is up to us in Congress to ensure that the region is equipped to rebuild. The residents of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans take pride in their cities and towns and they want to lead the way in reviving their own communities. But they desperately need our help. That is why today, Senator Gregg and I are introducing the Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Act. We need a response that is as good and generous as the American people but our existing disaster relief structures are not equipped for this monumental task. The primary focus of our Department of Homeland Security is to protect the Nation from terrorism, and it is imperative for that work to go on unimpeded. And FEMA is primarily a rapid response agency whose first responsibility is to provide relief in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Given the enormity of the number of people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the rebuilding will be an all-consuming task. And if it is to take place as rapidly as possible, it requires the creation of a new Federal entity to be an effective partner in that effort. Our bill creates a Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Agency to aid in the work of rebuilding the region. The enormous Federal investment that will be needed to revitalize the region would be channeled through this agency. Estimates of the cost of rebuilding the region are as high as $200 billion. We need someone who will be responsible for the coordinated deployment of these dollars. The agency will be headed by a Director, an eminent, nonpartisan person with demonstrated leadership in large organizations. It will take strong leadership that has the attention of the President to coordinate redevelopment efforts and cut through the redtape to ensure that Federal funds are deployed swiftly, efficiently and effectively. Under our bill, the President appoints the Director with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director will have overall control of Federal funding, personnel, and assets used for rebuilding the region. The Director of the Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Agency will work with an Authority, composed primarily of residents from the affected area, that will develop a comprehensive plan for rebuilding the region. Governors, mayors, community leaders, business and non-profit leaders, citizens and the Federal Government will be able to sit around the same table to develop a common blueprint for reconstructing their communities and their lives. While only the Federal Government possesses the necessary resources to rebuild the devastated areas, it is essential that State and local officials who know the area best be full partners. Local residents must share the decisionmaking authority. Creating this Authority to develop a comprehensive plan for redevelopment will guarantee that local concerns are taken seriously. How to rebuild should not be determined by the biggest, most powerful contractors. We need to work from a shared vision for the future in which we all do our part in rebuilding the new Gulf Coast. The rebuilding process does not merely involve reproducing in place the structures that existed prior to the hurricane and the flooding, although that alone would be an enormous task. It involves planning for the future of the affected communities. To develop this plan, the Authority will involve the best flood control engineers, the best community and urban development specialists, planners, and experts to address rebuilding or restoring water management facilities, environmental restoration, transportation, ports, housing, schools, hospitals, utility infrastructure, other public facilities, and employment and training. And, while we need to build water control systems and structures that will be able to withstand giant hurricanes and floods in the future, it is not just about the bricks and mortar. It is about promoting economic development and improving the quality of life for the residents of the region; it is about preserving the unique historical, cultural and architectural character of communities; and restoring the ecological resources of the region. It is about promoting access to housing, transportation, jobs and schools to residents of all incomes. We have a chance to build the Gulf economy of the future--and in doing so improve the entire Nation's economic destiny. We have a chance to build a new economy that works for everyone--with diverse housing and more job opportunities. We cannot wait any longer. The people of Louisiana, the people of Mississippi, Alabama and now Texas, and the many States who have taken in evacuees, cannot wait any longer. We need to act and appoint an executive who will lead recovery and redevelopment efforts and really listen to what the residents of the Gulf Coast, its community leaders, business leaders and elected officials really need. All of those who visited the region and those who have seen images of the devastation on TV recognize that rebuilding the Gulf Coast requires an unprecedented national effort. It must be a principal focus of our national government in the months ahead and it must be done in a genuine collaboration with the people of the affected region. I want to commend my colleague Senator Gregg who has worked very hard to ensure that we come up with a sensible way of addressing the enormous challenge of rebuilding that lies ahead. We believe that a Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Director and a Gulf Coast Revitalization Authority is the best way to combine the Federal resources and coordination with real local involvement in the decisionmaking process.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when I last spoke on the Senate floor about Hurricane Katrina, I spoke of my visit to the region--to Louisiana and Mississippi--where I witnessed first hand the devastation to these communities. Entire blocks were left bare to their foundations where families once lived. Schools and hospitals were destroyed. Power lines were draped over fallen trees and there was water everywhere. Roads were washed out and bridges were destroyed. Much of the great city of New Orleans was under water. It was beyond what any of us could have imagined. Seeing the Gulf Coast in such a state has deeply touched me and my family in deeply personal ways. My wife Vicki and her strong and wonderful family are from Louisiana. She went to school in Louisiana, attending Tulane University, and considers New Orleans her second home. It has now been more than a month since Hurricane Katrina first hit the Gulf Coast. Hurricane Rita wreaked further havoc on the region. And although the emergency phase of the response may be over, we now face the extraordinary challenge of rebuilding this region and restoring people's lives. Relief workers and agencies have been working tirelessly to clear debris, and connect evacuees to services and temporary housing. Just this week, New Orleans has finally been drained of all water left standing in the city. Health workers are working to address the public health challenges and the ongoing health needs of the evacuees. And States across the country continue to work with evacuees in their area to help them with housing, jobs and services. Relief and recovery efforts have revealed that we have our work cut out for us. Thousands of homes were destroyed and more have water marks to the ceilings, mold and severe structural damage are everywhere. Entire schools and hospitals must be rebuilt. Roads and bridges that were washed out must be replaced. Museums with artifacts of the rich cultural tradition of the region have been damaged. Much of what has made these cities and towns vibrant has been destroyed and kept residents away from their beloved communities. We need to make these communities whole again. We need to make them stronger and healthier. We need to build the roads and bridges that will bring the many evacuees home to quality, permanent homes, and get their children back to their schools. We must rebuild the region thoughtfully and swiftly. We owe it to the residents of the region who want to come home. And we owe it to the thousands of relief workers, charities, and businesses that have come together to make the region and its residents safe and secure. It is up to us in Congress to ensure that the region is equipped to rebuild. The residents of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans take pride in their cities and towns and they want to lead the way in reviving their own communities. But they desperately need our help. That is why today, Senator Gregg and I are introducing the Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Act. We need a response that is as good and generous as the American people but our existing disaster relief structures are not equipped for this monumental task. The primary focus of our Department of Homeland Security is to protect the Nation from terrorism, and it is imperative for that work to go on unimpeded. And FEMA is primarily a rapid response agency whose first responsibility is to provide relief in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. Given the enormity of the number of people displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the rebuilding will be an all-consuming task. And if it is to take place as rapidly as possible, it requires the creation of a new Federal entity to be an effective partner in that effort. Our bill creates a Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Agency to aid in the work of rebuilding the region. The enormous Federal investment that will be needed to revitalize the region would be channeled through this agency. Estimates of the cost of rebuilding the region are as high as $200 billion. We need someone who will be responsible for the coordinated deployment of these dollars. The agency will be headed by a Director, an eminent, nonpartisan person with demonstrated leadership in large organizations. It will take strong leadership that has the attention of the President to coordinate redevelopment efforts and cut through the redtape to ensure that Federal funds are deployed swiftly, efficiently and effectively. Under our bill, the President appoints the Director with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Director will have overall control of Federal funding, personnel, and assets used for rebuilding the region. The Director of the Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Agency will work with an Authority, composed primarily of residents from the affected area, that will develop a comprehensive plan for rebuilding the region. Governors, mayors, community leaders, business and non-profit leaders, citizens and the Federal Government will be able to sit around the same table to develop a common blueprint for reconstructing their communities and their lives. While only the Federal Government possesses the necessary resources to rebuild the devastated areas, it is essential that State and local officials who know the area best be full partners. Local residents must share the decisionmaking authority. Creating this Authority to develop a comprehensive plan for redevelopment will guarantee that local concerns are taken seriously. How to rebuild should not be determined by the biggest, most powerful contractors. We need to work from a shared vision for the future in which we all do our part in rebuilding the new Gulf Coast. The rebuilding process does not merely involve reproducing in place the structures that existed prior to the hurricane and the flooding, although that alone would be an enormous task. It involves planning for the future of the affected communities. To develop this plan, the Authority will involve the best flood control engineers, the best community and urban development specialists, planners, and experts to address rebuilding or restoring water management facilities, environmental restoration, transportation, ports, housing, schools, hospitals, utility infrastructure, other public facilities, and employment and training. And, while we need to build water control systems and structures that will be able to withstand giant hurricanes and floods in the future, it is not just about the bricks and mortar. It is about promoting economic development and improving the quality of life for the residents of the region; it is about preserving the unique historical, cultural and architectural character of communities; and restoring the ecological resources of the region. It is about promoting access to housing, transportation, jobs and schools to residents of all incomes. We have a chance to build the Gulf economy of the future--and in doing so improve the entire Nation's economic destiny. We have a chance to build a new economy that works for everyone--with diverse housing and more job opportunities. We cannot wait any longer. The people of Louisiana, the people of Mississippi, Alabama and now Texas, and the many States who have taken in evacuees, cannot wait any longer. We need to act and appoint an executive who will lead recovery and redevelopment efforts and really listen to what the residents of the Gulf Coast, its community leaders, business leaders and elected officials really need. All of those who visited the region and those who have seen images of the devastation on TV recognize that rebuilding the Gulf Coast requires an unprecedented national effort. It must be a principal focus of our national government in the months ahead and it must be done in a genuine collaboration with the people of the affected region. I want to commend my colleague Senator Gregg who has worked very hard to ensure that we come up with a sensible way of addressing the enormous challenge of rebuilding that lies ahead. We believe that a Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Director and a Gulf Coast Revitalization Authority is the best way to combine the Federal resources and coordination with real local involvement in the decisionmaking process.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina for bringing focus to this issue. They are approaching this issue in different ways, but it is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. Both Senators, as members of the Armed Services Committee, remember the good deal of thought, work, and consideration given this subject matter by the Armed Services Committee under the guidance of Senator Warner and Senator Levin. Amendment No. 1977 Madam President, now is time for action. That is why I rise to speak in strong support of the McCain amendment and urge our colleagues to understand it and to give it strong support as well. As we know, nearly 2 years ago, American soldiers at Abu Ghraib were struggling to figure out how to handle the hundreds of detainees who were pouring into that facility. They had no guidance. They had no directions to regulate that treatment. In the absence of that guidance, their treatment of detainees deteriorated into cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment. They documented their cruelty, and the images are still horrifying-- an Iraqi prisoner in a dark hood and cape, standing on a cardboard box with electrodes attached to his body; naked men forced to simulate sex acts on each other; the corpse of a man who had been beaten to death, lying in ice, next to soldiers smiling and giving a ``thumbs up'' sign; a pool of blood from the wounds of a naked, defenseless prisoner attacked by a military dog. The reports of widespread abuse by U.S. personnel was initially met with disbelief and then incomprehension. But the reports are too numerous to ignore. We had reports of detainees in Afghanistan shackled to the floor, left out in the elements to freeze to death. We have had reports of detainees in Guantanamo who were subjected to sexual humiliation. Human Rights Watch recently released a report based on the statements of three soldiers, one officer and two noncommissioned officers, in the 82nd Airborne who described how their battalions routinely used physical and mental torture as means of intelligence gathering and stress relief--torture as a sport. They stand in sharp contrast to the values America has always stood for: our belief in the dignity and worth of all people, our unequivocal stance against torture and abuse, our commitment to the rule of law. The images horrified us and severely damaged our reputation in the Middle East and around the world. Instead of taking responsibility for what happened, the generals and senior administration officials tried to minimize the abuse as the work of ``a few bad apples''--all conveniently lower rank soldiers--in a desperate effort to emphasize the role of senior military officials in exposing the scandal and insulate the civilian leadership from responsibility for changing the rules. It is clear what the results of those changes were. CPT Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate and officer in the 82nd Airborne, wrote: Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. For nearly 2\1/2\ years--from August 2002 until December 2004--the executive branch of our Government operated under the assumption that it was not bound by the law that prohibits torture. The Office of Legal Counsel promulgated an official opinion stating that the President and everyone acting under his Commander-in-Chief authority was free to ignore this law. It states: Any effort to apply [the anti-torture statute] in a manner that interferes with the . . . detention and interrogation of enemy combatants . . . would be unconstitutional. This opinion was adopted and implemented by the CIA and the Department of Defense. Effectively, what it was saying was that for anybody who was operating under the DOD, if the purpose of their torture was to get information, then it was basically all right. If the purpose of the torture was to bring harm, then it would be illegal. But that decision by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice effectively said: The school is out. People can do anything they want to with any detainee. And that was the rule for 2\1/2\ years. It is called the Bybee memorandum. We have had extensive hearings on that in both the Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee. This opinion was adopted and implemented by the CIA and the Department of Defense. Harold Koh, a leading scholar of international law and dean of Yale Law School, who served in both the Reagan and Clinton administrations, called it ``the most clearly legally erroneous opinion'' he has ever read. That is in reference to the Bybee memorandum that was requested by the CIA and the Department of Defense, through the Attorney General, from the Office of Legal Counsel, to give them a memorandum to effectively permit wholesale torture. They received that memo, and they used it to gut our long-standing laws. That Bybee memo was the law of the land, effectively, in the CIA and the Department of Defense for 2\1/2\ years. We saw what the results were. The McCain amendment would make sure that will not happen again. Our political leaders made deliberate decisions to throw out the well-established legal framework that has long made America the gold standard for human rights throughout the world. The administration left our soldiers, case officers, and intelligence agents in a fog of ambiguity. They were told to ``take the gloves off'' without knowing what the limits were, and the consequences were foreseeable. In rewriting our human rights laws, the administration consistently overruled the objections of experienced military personnel and diplomats. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, warned the White House: It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our [own] troops. Senior Defense officials were warned that changing the rules could lead to so-called ``force drift'', in which, without clearer guidance, the level of force applied to an uncooperative detainee might well result in torture. William Taft, the State Department Legal Advisor in President Bush's first term, recently called it a source of amazement and disappointment that the Justice Department severely limited the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the detainees. In an address at American University, he said the decision to do so: unhinged those responsible for the treatment of the detainees . . . from the legal guidelines for interrogation . . . embodied in the Army Field Manual for decades. Set adrift in uncharted waters and under pressure from their leaders to develop information on the plans and practices of al Qaeda, it was predictable that those managing the interrogation would eventually go too far. And they did. The Judge Advocates General echoed Mr. Taft's concerns. On July 14, 2005, the JAGs appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Personnel. In response to questioning by my friend Senator Graham, the witnesses acknowledged that the Justice Department's policy embodied in the Bybee torture memorandum's definition of torture was a violation of international and domestic law and alarmed the Judge Advocates General who reviewed it. Their alarm was well founded because their concerns were overruled by General Counsel William Haynes, who issued the Defense Department's April 2003 Working Group Report. The report twisted and diluted the definition of ``torture,'' claimed that military personnel who commit torture may invoke the defenses of ``necessity'' and ``superior orders,'' and advised military personnel that they are not obligated to comply with the Federal prohibition on torture. Senator Graham himself accurately assessed the impact of the civilian authorities when he told the JAG officers at the hearing: I think it is fair to say that the Department of Defense was secondary to the Department of Justice in a political sense, and that was our problem. If they had listened from the outset, we wouldn't have had a lot of the problems that we have had to deal with in the past. The President is not an emperor or a king. His administration is not above the law or accountability, and he is certainly not infallible. The single greatest criticism of this administration's detention and interrogation policies is that it failed to respect history, the collective wisdom of our career military and State Department officials, and that it holds far too expansive a view of executive authority. In short, the White House suffers from the arrogance of thinking they knew best and abandoning the long-standing rules. As Captain Fishback wrote: We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation. We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The McCain amendment takes a strong step forward to giving our troops that standard. I hope it is supported. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Captain Fishback's letter, which was published in the Washington Post, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold my suggestion.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our military is first in the world, because of the quality and training of our personnel and because of the technological sophistication of our equipment and weaponry. A large portion of the best civilian scientific minds in the Defense Department are nearing retirement age. I rise to thank my colleagues for their support and adoption of the amendment Senator Collins and I offered to ensure that the Department maintains the workforce that it needs to stay globally competitive and invests in crucial research and development efforts. Our amendment includes $10 million to double the committee's funding for the Department's current SMART Scholars program, which is essentially an ROTC program for the agency's civilian scientists. This represents a $17.8 million increase over the $2.5 million funding level provided last year--the program's first year in existence. It increases by $30 million the Department's funding of basic research in science and technology, to ensure that its investment in this field is maintained and our military technology remains the best in the world. Our amendment provides sufficient funding for the full cost of college scholarships and graduate fellowships for approximately 100 science, technology, engineering, and math students. It increases basic research in the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, and National Defense Education Program. It is supported by more than 60 of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in America. Defense Department-sponsored research has resulted in stunningly sophisticated spy satellites, precision-guided munitions, stealth equipment, and advanced radar. The research has also generated new applications in the civilian economy. The best known example is the Internet, originally a DARPA project. Advances in military technology often have their source in the work of civilian scientists in Department of Defense laboratories. Unfortunately, a large percentage of these scientists are nearing retirement. Today, nearly one in three DOD civilian science, technical, engineering, and mathematical employee is eligible to retire. In 7 years, 70 percent will be of retirement age. Another distressing fact is that the number of new scientists being produced by our major universities at the doctoral level each year has declined by 4 percent over the last decade. Many of those who do graduate are ineligible to work on sensitive defense matters, since more than a third of all science and engineering doctorate degrees awarded at American universities go to foreign students. It is unlikely that retiring DOD scientists will be replaced by current private industry employees. According to the National Defense Industrial Association, over 5,000 science and engineering positions are unfilled in private industry in defense-related fields. The Nation confronts a major math and science challenge in elementary and secondary education and in higher education as well. We are tied with Latvia for 28th in the industrialized world today in math math education, and that is far from good enough. We have fallen from 3rd in the world to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Clearly, we need a new National Defense Education Act of the size and scope passed nearly 50 years ago. At the very least, however, the legislation before us needs to do more to maintain our military's technological advantage. Last year, over 100 ``highly rated'' SMART Scholar applications were turned down because of insufficient funding. Our amendment has sufficient funds to support every one of those talented young people who want to learn and serve. It also increases the investment in basic research in science and technology. Investments by DOD in science and technology through the 1980s helped the United States win the cold war. But funding for basic research in the physical sciences, math and engineering has not kept pace with research in other areas. Federal funding for life sciences has risen fourfold since the 1980s. Over the same period, appropriations for the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics have remained essentially flat. Funding for basic research fell from fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2004 by more than 10 percent in real terms. The Defense Science Board has recommended that funding for Science and Technology reach 3 percent of total defense spending, and the administration and Congress have adopted this goal in the past. The board also recommended that 2 percent of that amount be dedicated to basic research. We must do better, and our amendment makes progress on this issue. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this amendment and for their support in its adoption. I hope that we will continue to see similar increases in these programs in the future. Amendment No. 1955

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague once again, Senator Bayh, in sponsoring this amendment, No. 1933, which increases funding for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for the Army. Together, Senator Bayh and I have worked very hard together to make sure our soldiers have what they need. In April of this year, the Senate added $150 million for additional armored vehicles in the Iraq Supplemental. Now we want to work together to keep our troops in the field properly equipped and also make sure they have the proper equipment on hand at home to train with prior to going overseas. The money in this amendment will make sure that the Army's pre-positioned stocks are re-constituted after over 2\1/2\ years at war. There are also funds for the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, LA. The Joint Readiness Training Center provides advance level joint training for the Army's Active and Reserve Component, Air Force and Navy forces. The training they receive simulates what they will face when deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. This issue has been divisive for far too long. All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all we can to see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives and carry out their missions. It's scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into battle year after year in Iraq without adequate equipment. It's scandalous that desperate parents and wives here at home have had to resort to Wal-Mart to try to buy armor and mail it to their loved ones in Iraq to protect them on the front lines. Secretary Rumsfeld has rarely been more humiliated than on his visit to Iraq last December, when a soldier had the courage to ask him why the troops had to scavenge scrap metal on the streets to protect themselves. The cheer that roared out from troops when he asked question said it all. More than 400 troops have already died in military vehicles vulnerable to roadside bombs, grenades, and other notorious improvised explosive devices. Many of us have visited soldiers at Walter Reed and Bethesda and seen the tragic consequences of inadequate armor. We want to ensure that parents grieving at Arlington National Cemetery no longer ask, ``Why weren't more armored humvees available?'' It's taken far too long to solve this problem. We have to make sure we solve it now, once and for all. We can't keep hoping the problem will somehow go away. In a letter last October 20, General Abizaid said, ``The FY 2004 Supplemental Request will permit the services to rapidly resolve many of the equipment issues you mentioned to include the procurement of . . . Humvees.'' We have been told for months that the Army's shortage of Up-Armored Humvees was a thing of the past. The Army could have, and should have, moved much more quickly to correct the problem. As retired General Paul Kern, who headed the Army Materiel Command until last November, said, ``. . . It took too long to materialize.'' He said, ``In retrospect, if I had it to do all over, I would have just started building up-armored Humvees. The most efficient way would have been to build a single production line and feed everything into it.'' In April, GAO released a report that clearly identifies the struggles the Pentagon has faced. In August 2003, only fifty-one Up-Armored Humvees were being produced a month. It took the industrial base a year and a half to work up to making 400 a month. Now the Army says they can now get delivery of 550 a month. The question is, why did it take so long? Why did we go to war without the proper equipment? Why didn't we fix it sooner, before so many troops have died? According to GAO, there are two primary causes for the shortage of up-armored vehicles and add-on-armor kits. First, a decision was made to ramp-up production gradually rather than use the maximum available capacity. Second, funding allocations did not keep up with rapidly increasing requirements. Obviously, the Pentagon was still being influenced by its cakewalk mentality. The GAO report specifically states that Pentagon decision-makers set the rate at which both up-armored Humvees and armor kits would be produced, and did not tell Congress about the total available production capacity. GAO was unable to determine what criteria were used to set the rate of production. In both cases, additional production capacity was available, particularly for the kits. The delay was unconscionable. Without this amendment, the production rate of Up-armored humvees could drop off again later this year. We need to guarantee that we are doing everything possible to get the protection to our troops as soon as possible. We owe it to them, to their families here at home and to the American people. We need to make sure our troops overseas have the best equipment available to protect them in combat. They also need to have the same equipment to train with at the Joint Readiness Center and the money in this amendment will ensure that happens. The amendment contributes significantly to this goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, sadly, the gap between rich and poor has been widening in our society. The number of persons living in poverty in the Nation has increased from 31 million in 2000 to 37 million today, including 13 million children. Two main parts of the problem are that wages are stagnant, and the long-term unemployment rate is at historic levels. After Hurricane Katrina revealed the plight of minorities, the ``silent slavery of poverty is not so silent any more.'' For many, the American dream has turned into 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. Significant numbers of Americans live year-round with the constant threat of power shut-offs because they can't pay their energy bills, and there is no relief in sight. According to the Energy Information Administration, energy prices are likely to continue to increase. The outlook for the coming winter is bleak. Heating oil will probably cost a third more than the already high prices Americans paid last year. Families who use natural gas to heat their homes will also pay more. The average 2005 price for residential natural gas is estimated to be 21 percent higher than it was in 2004. These are not just abstract numbers. They represent real burdens on real people. Minorities, the elderly, and the disabled, and many others are forced to make painful choices between heating their homes and paying for food, healthcare, and rent. The good news is that a highly successful Federal program is available to prevent the poorest of poor from making impossible tradeoffs. LIHEAP grants money to low-income families who can't afford the steep cost of energy. The number of American households receiving LIHEAP assistance has increased from over 4 million in 2002 to 5 million this year, the highest level in 10 years. Ninety-four percent of LIHEAP recipients have at least one member who is elderly, disabled, a child under the age of 18, or is a single parent with a young child. Seventy-seven 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 Federal poverty line. The bad news is that these fortunate recipients comprise only 18 percent of the eligible population. In Massachusetts, the participation rate is 22 percent, which is still unacceptably low. Last year in Worcester, the city's Community Action Council provided fuel assistance to 9,660 households, but it processed applications for almost 11,000 households before the funds ran out. Many of the unserved households were made up of the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children. In Franklin and Hampshire counties in Massachusetts, over 6,000 LIHEAP applications were processed. The Franklin Community Action Corporation reported that emergency applications and payment requests increased this past winter. They told me that this was by far their most stressful year. Across the United States, families are suffering from high energy prices. There are far too many stories of families that were eligible to receive LIHEAP, but didn't because the money just wasn't there. Here are just a few examples. A single father just lost his job on June 15 and has three children. His electric bill was $117.33, but he is unable to pay it because he isn't receiving unemployment compensation, or any other income. He is looking for work every day. Even if he is hired soon, his electricity may be turned off before he gets his first paycheck. A grandmother taking care of three grandchildren, ages 14, 11, 5 had an electric bill for $195. Her monthly income is $904. The house is totally electric, so the bills will probably be going higher. The grandmother also has extra medical expenses, but she too was turned away. It is wrong to let people like this suffer. So how does the Republican leadership in Congress respond? By cutting or freezing funds for essential low income programs. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita upended the lives of millions of citizens in the Gulf region, and the administration was right to release emergency energy funds for the areas that were devastated. But, their response to the looming energy crisis is far less. The administration and the House of Representatives closed their eyes to the needs of the poor. The House sent the Senate a continuing resolution which froze funding for the LIHEAP program. The current 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 of recipients 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 program. According to ABCD, a community action agency in Massachusetts, since the outreach and application process for LIHEAP is handled through the ABCD neighborhood network, funding cuts will mean 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 in Congress who care about this issue sent an urgent request to the President to increase the funds, but our request has gone unanswered. In a news conference earlier this week, a reporter asked Energy Secretary Bodman if the administration plans to ask Congress for more funds for assistance for low-income families and seniors. Secretary Bodman replied, ``At least at this point in time, that's not on the agenda.'' The administration may not think the needs of the poor deserve to be on their agenda, but the States do. They are trying to do their part. In Massachusetts, State legislators want to add $20 million in State funds to LIHEAP, to supplement Federal funds. Governors are stepping forward to acknowledge the problem. A bipartisan group of 28 Governors, led by Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, recently sent a letter to Congress urging additional emergency funds for LIHEAP. They know the importance of this issue first hand, and so should we. Congress needs to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. We have the ability to tell the elderly, and the disabled, and many others that we have heard them, and that we won't leave them shivering in the cold this winter. LIHEAP provides a critical service to desperate families who have nowhere else to turn for basic energy help, and LIHEAP is indispensable in filling that need. I strongly support this amendment to increase these emergency funds. We can't shortchange LIHEAP and all the people who need our help the most. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.