Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. She continues: ``We owe $800 on the water bill and $500 for heat.'' These are the real workers who are going to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. What has happened over the last 3 years? We have seen the number of Americans who are living in poverty grow from 3l million up to more than 34 million. These are 3 million Americans who are living in poverty, including hundreds of thousands of children, in the richest country in the world, who are living in poverty and, in so many instances, in hunger in the United States of America. This is what the 2003 survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that looked at hunger found. These are mayors, Republicans and Democrats: 39 percent of the adults requesting food assistance were employed. Why? Because the minimum wage cannot provide sufficient income. These are hard-working individuals trying to look out after their families and feed them, and they cannot make enough to provide food for their families. No. 2, a leading cause of hunger was low-paying jobs. We have a chance to do something about that by increasing the minimum wage. This is what the mayors from all over the country, Republican and Democrat, say, that a leading cause of hunger is low-paying jobs. Emergency food assistance increased by 14 percent just this last year. Fifty-nine percent of those requesting food assistance were members of families, with children and elderly parents. This is what is going on in this country. We can make a difference. Finally, one of the major recommendations they make is raising the Federal minimum wage as a way the Federal Government could help alleviate hunger. Do we hear that? That is the recommendation of the mayors of this country. Look at what happened in a study the National Urban League did on the issue of minimum wage. They say: Minimum wage workers are too often presented as teenagers or wives in the middle class. Yet the clear implication of this study is that the proposed increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.65 an hour, or to $7 an hour in the case today, would move 1.4 million American households to the level of being food secure, having enough money to buy nutritious, safe food for their families. It continues: The increase in the minimum wage lessens hunger in all households, but particularly in low-income households and in those households in which the householder was less educated, in African, Hispanic, or single parents. This is what is happening. There is an increased number of those who are living in poverty and an increase in the number of children living in poverty. Look at the impact of hunger, the consequences of hunger and food insecurity on children. This is the Heller study, June of 2002: Elementary-school children from food-insufficient families were more likely to have repeated a grade in school in both a national sample of elementary-school children and a study of low-income families from the Pittsburgh area. Hungry and at-risk for hunger children from 4 inner-city schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore were absent from school more days than other children and also had higher rates of tardiness. A similar finding with respect to missing school was found in a multi-state survey of low income households. These are the studies. Children are going hungry in America. This proposal is not going to answer all the problems, but it will help 7 million Americans. That is something worthy of this body this day. But we are going to be denied by our Republicans the opportunity of even voting on this amendment. As I have said often, this is a women's issue because the great majority of individuals who receive the minimum wage are women. This is a children's issue because a great majority of those women have children. It is a women and children's issue. This is a family issue affecting women and children. This is a civil rights issue because so many of these men and women are of color. And finally, this is a fairness issue because people in the United States of America understand fairness, and they believe if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you should not have to live in poverty. Let's vote up or down, at least have the courage of convictions on the other side and give us a chance and give these 7 million Americans who deserves an increase in the minimum wage an opportunity to have some hope at the end of the day because the Senate did the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is entirely appropriate for the Senate to pause for a few moments to recognize not only the record of 17,000 votes, but also the presence and continued service of a remarkable man who happens to be the senior Senator from West Virginia. Bob Byrd is our Lou Gehrig the iron man of the Senate. For me, Bob Byrd personifies what our Founding Fathers were thinking about when they were thinking about a United States Senate. He brings the kind of qualities that the Founding Fathers believed were so important for service to the Nation. When history records his remarkable service to the United State Senate, they will find there has been no one--no one--in this body who has defended the Constitution of the United States more vigorously, tenaciously, and with a greater understanding, awareness, and belief in its words. There has been no one in history that has better understood the importance of the United States Senate and its role in our great democracy. Bob Byrd understands what our Founding Fathers intended, and because of his constant and persistent efforts, this institution is finer and all of us are finer Senators. Senator Byrd, we are grateful for your service and this country is appreciative and grateful for your defense of the Constitution and for your service to this country. I am grateful to have you as a friend.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the cosponsor of this amendment with my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, I do want to clarify for the record where we are and the view those who are sponsoring the amendment have with regard to proceeding on the TANF reauthorization legislation, which is before us. Because we have had characterizations made about our amendment, I wish to clarify for the benefit of the Senate and, more importantly, for the American people exactly what the current situation is before the Senate. Before the Senate, we have what we call the TANF legislation, to move people off welfare into employment. As has been mentioned on a number of occasions--I have a copy of the report--the point is made by the Republican floor manager that this amendment to increase the minimum wage is not pertinent to this legislation and, therefore, because of the fact we are offering it, we are delaying the whole process even though we indicated to the floor manager we were eager to enter into a very short time agreement, a 20-minute time agreement, time to be evenly divided, a time certain, and then move on to another amendment. We want to make very clear, speaking for the supporters of the amendment, we are interested in coming to a resolution. The answer on the other side is, well, since this is not relevant to the subject at hand, we are not going to let a vote occur. That is a rather unusual process and procedure. As to amendments on legislation, unlike appropriations, the Senate rules permit a vote on legislation, but the majority does not choose to do so. Therefore, they refuse to let us get a vote on this and then criticize us for delaying the process even though we are prepared to vote this afternoon. It is 12:30 now; we can vote at 1, or whatever time the floor manager would permit us to do so. I mention once again how ridiculous I think the argument is from the other side that this is not a relevant amendment. If one looks at the legislation itself dealing with TANF and looks through the report, as I have said previously, they can look under ``strengthens work,'' that is what this legislation is supposedly all about. If we take the statement of the Secretary of HHS, Tommy Thompson--listen to this--regarding the TANF reauthorization requirements: This administration recognizes that the only way to escape poverty is through work, and that is why we have made work and jobs that will pay at least the minimum wage the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Here it is, the administration spokesman talking about the centerpiece of the TANF will pay a minimum wage. That is exactly what we are trying to do. How is it possible that the floor manager can say this is not relevant when the Secretary of HHS specifically refers to a minimum wage? How can they possibly take that position? How can they say we are trying to delay it when we are prepared to go ahead with a short time limit? The American people must be greatly confused. Here it is, the Secretary of HHS, the President's representative on this issue, saying this administration recognizes the only way to escape poverty is through work and that is why we have made work and jobs that will pay at least the minimum wage the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. That is the statement he had at that time on March 6, 2002. As the report goes on, the other references I have talked about, ``reasons for change,'' to move welfare recipients into good jobs, good jobs obviously suggest they are going to be halfway decent. The committee refers to the reasons for the change, that the committee wants to build by increasing work and reducing the welfare and talking about good jobs. That is the reference all the way through. That is what the Secretary has said. We have indicated we are prepared to move ahead and move ahead immediately, but we are denied the opportunity to do so. And that is with regard to procedure. I listened earlier to my friend and colleague from Oklahoma saying we really do not need a minimum wage; we ought to let the market decide and make these judgments and decisions. Well, we have heard that. I have heard that since I arrived in the Senate, not only every time we have the chance to debate the minimum wage. Then he talks about the challenges we are facing in rural areas are not the same challenges as they face in urban areas, which we have understood. That is why we have an exclusion for agricultural workers. We have a different kind of a financial situation for mom-and-pop stores rather than the large stores in many urban areas. That is why we have a cap and say if you have approximately $600,000 or less gross earnings, you do not have to observe the minimum wage provisions. We responded to these rifleshot ideas that have been constantly brought up during the debates on the minimum wage. I would like to go back to the general kinds of themes that were brought out. As we understand, this is a minimum wage, not a maximum wage. We are talking about a minimum wage to meet minimum kinds of standards in this country. Hopefully we have gone beyond the debate about whether we were going to have the robber barons or the monopolists in this society have individuals who are in the workforce so thoroughly and completely exploited. Many in the Senate have been up to visit the old mill towns of Massachusetts, and one can still travel up to Lowell and visit many of those old textiles and they will see the letters from children who are 7 and 8 years old who were writing and who were working in the mills 10 or 12 hours a day, in many instances 7 days a week. Some of the most moving of those letters are by these children who write looking outside the windows and seeing other children playing outside and dreaming of the time that they might be able to do so. In the old days when we did not have any kind of protections for any workers, we had extraordinary exploitation of children in the workforce. Well, that goes back to the time where the Government was not involved. In 1938, after a great deal of struggle, sweat, and bloodshed, all that changed with the very important child labor laws. Some had been passed before. Basically, we established the minimum wage, the time and a half for overtime, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, even though the overtime issue in question is now threatened by this administration that wants to abolish overtime for some 8 million workers, mostly firefighters, policemen, and nurses who in many instances are our first responders. All one has to do is go to any hospital and talk to some of those nurses and find out how in many instances they are required to work overtime, and find out their views about quality of care. Now imagine if overtime is eliminated and there is that kind of requirement. We have a shortage of nurses today. One can imagine what is going to happen tomorrow if that particular recommendation by the administration is put into effect. So basically we are talking about a minimum wage. We can hear on the other side, as we heard earlier from the Senator from Oklahoma, well, it is important to get on the bottom rung of the ladder because if one gets on the bottom rung of the ladder, they develop certain kinds of skills and attitudes and will be able to move ahead and have a successful life. Well, there are certain truths to getting on a bottom rung of the ladder if the bottom rung of the ladder is not so low it actually submerges a person and they cannot survive on the bottom rung of the ladder because they are so overwhelmed by the challenges of life, of being able to survive. That is what we are talking about, having the bottom rung of the ladder so that at least one can make a living wage, they are going to at least be treated with some sense of dignity in this country of ours, which is the richest country in the world. There are people who are struggling. It does appear, by those who are opposed to the increase in the minimum wage, there is some dismissiveness about the individuals who are receiving it. I do not buy that. The minimum wage workers in the workforce I have met are among some of the most courageous and dignified men and women one will ever want to meet. I am going to mention who we are really talking about. Who are these people who are earning the minimum wage? We have heard speeches on the floor. Let's put some human faces on these individuals. Shreveport, LA: It was early April, and 46-year-old Mrs. Williams was dressed in the dark blue uniform she wears at her first job caring for the aged and infirm at a nursing home. On top there was a gray apron she dons for her second job cleaning offices at night. The place where she works as a nursing assistant, Harmony House, was paying her $5.50 an hour, barely above the minimum wage, even though she had been there for 10 years as a union member and completed college courses to become certified. The cleaning job which she took up because she could not make ends meet pays right at the Federally mandated $5.15 an hour. ``You think you are moving forwards,'' adds Ms. Williams, ``but you're just moving backwards.'' Mr. Valles earns his living serving hamburgers at a McDonald's restaurant in downtown Los Angeles. He's a family man. He and his wife, Lily, have two children. ``I make $5.75 an hour. That's about $240 a week. One hundred ninety dollars after taxes. You can't really live on that. Lily works in a fast-food place, too. She makes the same as me. Two weeks of my pay and two weeks of her pay every month goes for rent. Then you have to pay the fare to go back and forth to work. You gotta pay for your food. You have bills. We're still paying on the sofa. . . .'' I asked if they ever went on vacation. He looked at me as if I asked if his children could fly. ``No,'' said Mr. Valles quietly. ``There is no money for vacation.'' The list goes on. We have this situation: As she weighs bunches of purple grapes or rings up fat chicken legs at the supermarket where she works, Fannie Payne cannot keep from daydreaming. ``It's difficult to work at a grocery store all day, looking at all the food I can't buy,'' Mrs. Payne said. ``So I imagine filling up my cart with one of those big orders and bringing home enough for all my kids.'' Instead, she said that she and her husband, Michael, a factory worker, routinely go without dinner to make sure their four children have enough to eat. They visit a private hunger center monthly for three days' worth of free groceries, to help stretch the $60 a week they spend on food. ``We're behind on all our bills,'' Mrs. Payne said. ``We don't pay electricity until they threaten a cut-off. To be honest, I'm behind two months on the mortgage--that's $600 a month. We owe $800 on the water bill and $500 for heat.'' The Euclid Hunger Center helped her seek aid from her parish, Saint William's Catholic Church, but it hurt that three cars broke down in six months. ``They all died and we had to get Mike to work, so we bought a good used car we can't afford.'' The first thing to go was money for food herself and husband. ``Some nights Mike and I eat our kids' leftovers, and if we don't have enough money for milk, I feed the kids soup for breakfast,'' she said. Living with housing hardship. Hector Cuatepotzo, a waiter in the upscale Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica, lives in a tiny, one-bedroom apartment with his wife, Maria, 6-year-old daughter, Ashley, and infant son, Bryan. All four sleep in the same small room, with Bryan's crib nestled in one corner, Ashley's bed in another. Cuatepotzo earns about $20,000 a year in salary and tips, equal to about $10 an hour, almost twice the minimum wage. But with $625 a month in rent and another $80 monthly gas and electricity, the family spends more than 40 percent of their income for housing. Cuatepotzo works from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. and travels 40 miles round-trip to work each day because rents in buildings closer to his job are even higher. Since Maria took time off from her job in the restaurant to have the baby, they received several eviction notices for late payment. Cuatepotzo is thinking about getting a second job, but that would mean rarely seeing his children. Cuatepotzo, who has worked at the Miramar since arriving from Mexico 10 years ago, would like to own his own home someday. ``It's my dream,'' he says. But he can't imagine how he'll ever get there when his family lives paycheck to paycheck. This is what is happening all across this country. These are not people who are slackers; they are hard workers. Here is Deborah, 23, from Pennsylvania, a single mother and survivor of domestic violence. She has two daughters. She was evicted from her home in New Jersey. She now resides in Clairton, PA, where she works as a salesperson in a grocery store earning $5.35 for 30 to 35 hours a week. Deborah has no health coverage for herself or her girls. Her earnings are spread thin to cover childcare expenses, transportation, food, and $50 a month for her bedroom at her aunt's. An increase in the minimum wage would help Deborah catch up on lagging bills, come closer to making ends meet, get needed doctor appointments for her children at a pay-for-service clinic, and purchase clothing for her children, who lost everything in the eviction and the escape from domestic violence. Pat Rodriguez lives in Washington, has worked at a laundry and drycleaners in Washington for 8 years. She earns $6.15 an hour, the minimum wage for the District of Columbia. Currently she and her colleagues are on strike over low wages and other issues. The money she earns working full time is not enough to pay the rent, pay for the basic necessities for her family. She has a 2-year-old child and is expecting a second child. She has no pension, no access to affordable health care, and relies on Medicaid. She works full time and still does not make enough to be able to save for the children's education. Pat says, ``I support raising the minimum wage, but I also want workers to be treated with respect, and for their work be valued accordingly.'' Elaine Murphy and her three children, 16, 11 and 6, recently moved to Newburgh, NY, from Oregon. Mrs. Murphy is a teacher's aide and special needs bus aide in the local elementary school. Every morning she is in the bus yard at 6:30, waiting to escort handicapped children on the bus. Then she works in the school offices and in classrooms until around 3, when she gets back on the bus and escorts the handicapped children to their homes. In Oregon, she made $10 an hour doing similar work, but in the new job, she is paid the minimum wage. The job suits her needs as a mother of three. She can be home in the afternoon to look after her 6-year-old, who is autistic and needs the kind of close supervision the school's afterschool program is not able to provide. There are daycare centers that could care for their son, but the cost is prohibitive. Her 16-year-old son is athletic, and after school she is able to drive him to practices and games. Despite the fact that Elaine works full time, she is paid so little that she qualifies for food stamps and her children receive health care through Medicaid. This bothers Elaine. She doesn't want Government assistance. She wants to work hard and provide for her family. In the school district where she works, janitors and others are paid enough to support their families while Elaine has little choice but to turn to the Government for assistance. She perceives the problem as this: The assumption is that women who work as teachers' aides or do similar work are not supporting their families but, rather, working to supplement the household income. In her case, this is not true. Elaine is the sole provider for her three children. For Elaine and her family, a higher minimum wage would mean a greater degree of self-sufficiency. Getting a second job is out of the question given her responsibilities at home. At the present rate of pay, making ends meet is impossible without Government subsidies. Elaine argues that working 40 hours a week for something as important as special needs education, she should not need Government handouts; that through hard work, she should be able to provide for her children. This is it. These are the real faces of people who are out there, trying to make ends meet. Our proposal was to increase the minimum wage just to $7. I will show the chart here, what more has happened with regard to the minimum wage over recent years. On the far side of the chart, this is purchasing power in the year 2000, dollar purchasing capability; in 1968 the equivalent of $8.50 for minimum wage. The red line indicates how the minimum wage has gradually dropped, how we were able to get it raised in 1990, and how we were able to get it raised in 1997 and 1998. Now we see it dropping without this increase to about its alltime low. This is a minimum wage, not a maximum wage. We hear those saying, if you are going to go for $7, why not go $10 or $15? That is missing the point. What we are trying to do is get this increased to $7. That will still put it below where it was for a period of 12 or 14 years, but at least it gets it much closer to a living wage. That is what this amendment is all about. We should understand it. This amendment affects real people. I gave some examples of real people. I have given examples of why the Secretary of HHS believes a minimum wage job is relevant to this bill. We have indicated we are prepared to vote on it. We daresay it is those on the other side, who do not want to vote on it, who are actually filibustering. I want to come to this issue and talk a little bit about the impact on families, and particularly the impact on children in terms of hunger, the problems of hunger. In 1938, we had the child labor law. We had minimum wage, and we put time and a half for overtime pay in there so workers would be considered. What we have looked at in more recent times, as hunger has been a defining aspect for people as well, we have tried to take a look at what the impact is on hunger, what the impact would be. First of all, this chart: Hunger is increasing for minimum wage families. The Agriculture Department reported more than 300,000 more families are hungry today than when President Bush first took office. More than 12 million American households are worried that they would not have enough to eat, and nearly 4 million households had someone go hungry. African-American households, Latino households, and households headed by single mothers were much more likely than the national average to experience food insecurity, and also more likely to experience hunger. I have the household food security for the United States. This study, put out by the Department of Agriculture, shows very clearly what is happening to families, and particularly families with minimum wage. What you find out is that in 1998, there were 14 million children who were living in families where there was a real problem in terms of food security, and then that went down in 1999 to 12 million. In the year 2000, it is 12 million. Then we see in 2001 that it began to turn around. In 2002, it is 14 million going right back up again. We were seeing the decline in terms of the impact of hunger on children in this country. Now we see as a result of the economic policies and failure to increase the minimum wage the fact that hunger is again taking off in these minimum wage households. This is an excellent report done by the State of Massachusetts. It is called ``Walk For Hunger, Project Bread.'' I will include in the Record the appropriate parts of the study. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 425,000 people in Massachusetts lack access to adequate food. In low- income communities in Massachusetts, 20 percent of households cannot afford to buy enough food to meet the basic nutritional needs of household members. The prevalence of hunger is highest among families with children. Today, in low-income communities, one child in three lives in a household struggling to put food on the table. Our State is one of the most prosperous, fortunately, in the country. This is what is happening in households in my State. If it is happening in Massachusetts, it is happening in States across this country. We have the broad figures. As we go along, I will have the opportunity to continue to give speeches and to point this out. Listen to this one more time. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 425,000 people in Massachusetts lack access to adequate food. In low- income communities in Massachusetts, 20 percent of the households cannot afford to buy enough food to meet the basic nutritional needs of household members. The prevalence of hunger is highest among families with children. Today, in low-income communities, one child in three lives in a household struggling to put food on the table. And we have opposition to an increase in the minimum wage. How much evidence do you need over there? How much child hunger do you need to increase the minimum wage? What more in the world do you need? That is happening not only in my State but in States all over this country. Children are facing real hunger because the parents are falling further and further and further behind. I have a book full of those examples, some of which I read. I have a book full of examples from all over the country. This is what is happening. The problem is getting worse. The Department of Agriculture indicates there are 35 million Americans hungry or living on the edge of hunger for economic reasons-- 35 million of our fellow citizens. There are 290 million people in this country, and 35 million of them are facing serious challenges with hunger in the United States today. We will have a chance in half an hour, if you want to take a very modest step to increase the minimum wage. It is not going to solve the problem, but it will sure do more about it than the current legislation which is before us. That we know. There are 300,000 more families hungry today than when this administration first took office. Twenty-three million Americans sought emergency food assistance from the hunger relief organization Second Harvest. Isn't that a fine description of what our country is coming to. As I indicated, these are men and women of dignity and respect, people who are working hard. We find in a number of the hunger programs, the Food Stamp Program and others, they are vastly underutilized because men and women have a sense of pride. They don't want to take handouts from the Federal Government. Even some of the school lunch programs are underutilized in some areas because parents don't want to have their children appear to come from a poor community. They are used to a higher degree than food stamps, but, nonetheless, that happens. These are men and women of pride. It is a real problem. These families, as I mentioned--23 million, Second Harvest--cannot afford balanced adequate diets. Parents are skipping meals so their children can eat. Nationwide, soup kitchens and food pantries and homeless shelters are increasingly serving the working poor--not just the unemployed. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and Catholic Charities report witnessing sharp increases in the use of emergency services offered by the cities and the Catholic Charity agencies. In 2003, the survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that looks at hunger found 39 percent of adults requesting food assistance were employed. Effectively, 40 percent of people who are trying to get some additional food assistance are employed and work hard. This is the conclusion of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as well as Catholic Charities--a leading cause of hunger is low-paying jobs. How much more evidence do you need? Do we think the U.S. Conference of Mayors is a tool of just the Democratic side of the Senate when Republican and Democrat mayors alike across this country are talking about the increasing problems they are facing and the challenges that families and their communities are facing when they say one of the principal reasons there is explosion in the hunger needs of children in this country is because of low-paying jobs? That is what this amendment is about--to do something about low- paying jobs. We have a chance to do something about it. We have done it in the past. We are denied the chance to do something right now about it. If cloture is successful, we ought to say it as it is. It will defeat this amendment. Evidently, the Republican leadership fears voting on this amendment, for reasons I can't possibly fathom, so much they are delaying the Senate a whole day. Here we are on Wednesday at 1 o'clock, and we are not going to be permitted to vote. We could vote on this in half an hour. No, you can't vote on it. We are going to make sure the Senate doesn't do any work this afternoon because we feel so intensely about increasing the minimum wage. We are against it going to $7 an hour over a 2-year period. We are going to insist on cloture--the unusual step of cloture in the Senate--in order to bring that amendment down so we will not even have to vote on it even though the Secretary of HHS has indicated minimum wage is essential to the success of this program. Is there anything more ludicrous? Is there anything that makes less sense? It is absolutely out of our imagination that Republicans feel so intensely in opposition they will refuse to let this institution vote on this measure which can make a difference in terms of children in poverty, families in poverty, proud men and women who are trying to provide for their children, a step that we have taken 11 different times since the minimum wage was passed with Republicans and Democrats alike. But what it is about is this Republican leadership that says: No, we are not even going to let you vote on it. We had difficulties other times trying to get a vote on it. I will certainly admit that. And the record will show that. But eventually we were able to do that, and eventually we were able to get it passed. But the ferocity of opposition this time is mind-boggling to this Senator. Listen to this, again from the U.S. Conference of Mayors: Emergency food assistance increased by 14 percent. This is just in 1 year. These are the 2003 figures. Fifty-nine percent of those requesting emergency food assistance were members of families, children. And then: City officials recommend raising the Federal minimum wage as a way the Federal Government can help alleviate hunger. Here it is, the Conference of Mayors--Democrat, Republican, mayors from all over this country; North, South, East, West; Republican and Democrat--talking about hunger, talking about the particular hunger needs of children, talking about the problems of the growth of hunger for working families, and they make one single recommendation: increase the minimum wage. And we cannot even get a vote on it in the Senate. Can you imagine people watching the Senate and hearing: Well, no, we can't vote on that. We can't vote on that. We are just not going to vote. And they say: Why? It looks as if those who are proposing it are ready to vote on it. We are. When are you ready to vote on it? In 20 minutes, half an hour? We are prepared. We have offered time limitations. They say: You are? What is wrong with the other side? They say it is not relevant to the underlying bill. They say it is not relevant. Let's see. Is that the way the Senate works? Let me help you figure out why it is relevant because I have a statement from the President's representative on this bill. This is what the President says. The President says: This administration recognizes that the only way to escape poverty-- He is talking now about the underlying bill-- is through work, and that is why we have made work and jobs that will pay at least the minimum wage the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Well, then they say: Wait a minute, I thought the Republicans said your amendment is not relevant. And now you are saying the Secretary of HHS says you should have a good job that pays an adequate minimum wage? Yes. And they say: It would seem to me it would be relevant. It does to me, too. That should be understandable to any third grader or fourth grader, but it is not to the Republican leadership because they do not want to pass it because they have powerful interest groups that do not want to pass it. That is the reason: special interest groups that refuse to let this pass. That is it. That is what this is about. You cannot get around it. So we have taken a few examples of who the people are who are affected, what kind of lives they are living, and what has been happening in one State that is a pretty prosperous State, my own State of Massachusetts, that has done a very detailed study. I will include that, as I mentioned, as a fierce indictment in terms of the failure of both our State and the Federal Government to be able to provide the help and assistance. We have the one recommendation by Republicans and Democrats alike, the mayors all over this country, who are close to the people on it and say: We have one single recommendation. They did not recommend the extension of TANF. They recommended one thing: increasing the minimum wage. That was their single recommendation. We heard statements just yesterday. I, very briefly, will respond to the arguments that if we raise the minimum wage we are going to contribute to the problems of unemployment in our society. I am glad to go through this issue. We have extended charts. We have debated this frequently the other times we had the increase, with the Kruger studies from New Jersey, which are probably the most extensive studies. I have the whole working paper. It goes into great detail as to the impact, historically, on the job market. As I mentioned before, the yellow line on this chart is the rate of unemployment in the year we increased the minimum wage, showing the rate of unemployment in October, when we had the second increase in the minimum wage, and then several months later. So you have the cumulative two increases in the minimum wage. And what was its impact on the rate of unemployment? As you see, going back to the 1996 increase, 1997, and then several months later, the unemployment rate remained at 4.7 percent. If you break it out with regard to African Americans, Hispanics, and teens, it is very much the same. You had 10 percent unemployment for African Americans, and 9.5 percent. If you take both the increase in that year and this year, and then take the result for those two, look at the next year; it was at 9.3 percent. If you look among Hispanic Americans, it is the same pattern. And if you look among the teens, it is the same pattern. Strong opposition said it is going to increase unemployment, it is going to increase teen unemployment, and minority unemployment. It does not do so. Another factor is the issue about whether this is going to be an inflater. As I mentioned, if you look it over--for those who want to take the time, it is not very difficult to do--but if you take the increase, the total number of people who are going to be affected by the increase in the minimum wage, and take the total payroll, you will find out the impact. We know increasing the minimum wage by $1.85, as I have pointed out, is vital to workers but a drop in the bucket to the national payroll. All Americans combined earn $5.7 trillion. And a $1.85 minimum wage increase would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the total national payroll. So spare us--spare us--the arguments about the adverse impact of an increase in the minimum wage on unemployment and on minorities and on teenagers, and spare us the argument that this is going to add to the issues of inflation because it does not do that. What it will do is, it will help some extremely hard-working families. It will help many workers who work hard clearing out the buildings at nighttime, being assistants to our teachers in our high schools and elementary schools in our country, working in nursing homes as assistants. These are minimum wage workers, and they are men and women of dignity. They are not looking for Government handouts. They want to be able to work hard and raise their children and live with the respect of their children and spend time with their children. That is why this is a women's issue because the great majority of those who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue because so many of those women have children. It is a family issue because the relationship between, primarily, single mothers--not always but primarily single mothers--and their children is dictated by whether the mother has one or two or even sometimes three minimum wage jobs. The time, or lack of time, they are able to spend with their children, obviously, is enormously important. This minimum wage is also a civil rights issue because so many of the men and women who receive the minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a civil rights issue, a children's issue, a family issue, a women's issue. Basically, it is a fairness issue because these men and women in this country believe if you work hard--you work hard--40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, you should not have to live in poverty. If you look, after all is said and done, at where the poverty level is for a family of three, it will be something under $15,000. And even with our increase in the minimum wage, they are going to be well below that. We are prepared to vote early this afternoon. We don't need more time. We can take more time, but we are prepared to vote at any particular time. This side has made its case. People in this body know what the issue is all about. It is not enormously complicated. They understand it. We are prepared to vote. It is a very simple vote. If it is finally enacted in the House--and I think with a strong vote here it will be--and if it is signed by the President--and if we have a strong vote in the House and the Senate, the President is going to sign it--it is going to make a big difference because 60 days after enactment, the first phase of it will begin to give some new hope to some of the hardest working men and women in the country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Iowa, and he is my friend. It is amazing to hear the response to an increase in the minimum wage. They say we are going to let other Government programs look out after these proud, hard workers who are trying to provide for themselves and for their families. Effectively, if we follow the way that the Senator from Iowa suggests, we are going to have to tax more people a lot more so that those programs are going to be there because we refuse to have employers do what they should do, and that is to pay a fair wage. Sure, everybody could be put on welfare and not have any minimum wage. What is the possible logic? Those Senators on the other side have been trying to cut those programs back for years. The programs dealing with nutrition, home heating and programs for food, they have been trying to cut those back for years. This administration has been trying to make EITC much more difficult to get. In order to oppose the increase in minimum wage, they say, well, the EITC program is out there. We are talking about proud men and women who want to work hard and look after their children and have a sense of dignity and not depend on welfare programs. The answer for those who are opposed to us is, give them more welfare programs. That is an insult to these working men and women. We reject that as an argument. We reject it. We are standing for the dignity of those working men and women who ought, in the richest country in the world, in the strongest economy, to be able to work hard and bring up their children with respect and dignity and not a handout. The Senator makes the point why we need the increase in the minimum wage. Because those workers are not receiving it today on their own. They should be able to get it. We are committed to trying to get an increase on the minimum wage. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I had not expected to hear the kind of statement with regard to the criticism of the Senator from Massachusetts, my colleague and friend John Kerry, on the energy policy. I will include in my comments a response to Senator Inhofe. I am wondering whether the Senator could possibly tell us what was the position of the President of the United States when OPEC continued to cut back on production today. We have a statement by a colleague talking about a candidate for the President of the United States when today OPEC primarily--

Mr. KENNEDY. I have the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order. Regular order.

Mr. KENNEDY. No, I do not yield. We have today more than 150,000 servicemen who are over there protecting the oil countries in the Middle East, and American service men and women are dying every single day. If we have a President of the United States who is lacking in sufficient influence to try and indicate to our allies that it is of vital importance to the security of the families and industry in the United States that they increase their production, what kind of influence do we have? Where is our President of the United States on this issue? Why are we hearing Members who are so eager to talk about John Kerry's policy on energy talking about what we ought to be doing over there today as OPEC is cutting back on its production? We hear silence. We have silence about that. Where is the administration? I remember last week we had my good friend Spencer Abraham, who is the Secretary of Energy, and I asked him the question whether this President was going to try and persuade the oil-producing countries in the Middle East to produce more energy, particularly at a time when we are faced with difficult economic significance. His answer was: This administration is not going to beg for oil. Beg for oil? When we have 140,000 men and women over there protecting their interests and protecting their oil and they are cutting back production? I would not think there would be many Members of the Senate who would be criticizing my colleague, who has done so, who recognize that their President should provide Presidential leadership. This election is about Presidential leadership. My colleague has been demanding that this President do something about the cutbacks in production. We hear criticism--well, he didn't show up for a vote. Sure, he is running for the Presidency of the United States. I will certainly respond to my colleague, but I am absolutely baffled that one of the major energy decisions being made in the world is being made within the last 24 hours by the OPEC countries, the primary producers, Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, other middle eastern countries whose security American servicemen have been fighting for and dying for, and this President and this administration has not sufficient influence to be able to stop them from cutting back in production or getting them to increase production. You talk about a bankrupt energy policy--there it is. Every consumer ought to know when they pay those extra funds for the gasoline, they are paying it directly to countries over there in the Middle East whose security we are protecting and for which American lives are being lost. It is beyond belief to me. Amendment No. 2945 Madam President, we have, over the course of the day, had a number of our colleagues speak about the amendment that is before us, and that is the increase in the minimum wage over a 2-year period, up to $7 an hour. I want to wrap up this evening and summarize a couple of important points because during the course of the afternoon, I followed the debate when I wasn't here for a few hours, meeting with the head of the VA about some of the challenges we are facing up in Massachusetts about veterans health. We heard statements, speeches from some of our colleagues on the other side, that the increase in the minimum wage was delaying action on the TANF reauthorization. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. As Senator Boxer, my friend and colleague who introduced the legislation, and I have stated, we would have been willing to have a 20-minute time agreement, 10 minutes a side, and had a vote and final disposition and then moved ahead with other amendments. But the opposition is so strong in opposition to this amendment that the Republican leadership has insisted we have, effectively, a cloture vote, delaying progress on the underlying bill for some 2\1/2\ days, so if they are successful in getting cloture, cutting off the debate, they will eliminate the possibility of even voting on an increase in the minimum wage. Maybe there are those who are opposed to the increase in the minimum wage. We have heard some of them speak today in opposition. But the idea that this is not related and relevant to the underlying bill defies any logic and any fair understanding of what the underlying bill, the TANF bill, is all about. I bring to their attention the statement that was made by Secretary Thompson regarding the TANF reauthorization when he testified on March 6, 2002. He said: This administration recognizes the only way to escape poverty is through work, and that is why we have made work and jobs that will pay at least the minimum wage the centerpiece of the reauthorization proposal for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family Program. That will pay at least the minimum wage. There it is in the words of the President's own representative. That is exactly the issue we are attempting to address and we are being denied getting final action on it. I am going to take a moment to review for the benefit of the Senate about where the minimum wage is now. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has dramatically decreased. We reviewed with the Senate what the impact of the increase in the minimum wage has been on unemployment and have shown many times when we have had increase in the minium wage it had virtually no adverse impact on the question of unemployment. We reviewed the fact if we have the increase in the minimum wage it virtually has no impact on the issue of inflation. We responded to the question of different conditions and different parts of the country. There are small mom-and-pop stores that would not be able to afford the increase in the minimum wage. We responded and pointed out those stores by and large are excluded under the provisions of the existing minimum wage. We heard: We don't want to do this because we want to encourage young people to work in agriculture. We responded: It doesn't relate to agricultural workers. We have addressed all of these kinds of conditions. These minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity. They work hard and long. The men and women who clean out the buildings in this country at nighttime, teachers' aides, and assistants working in homes looking after the elderly are men and women of dignity. They do not want any assistance. They want to have a wage so they can provide for themselves and their children and their families. I want to reiterate and give some examples. I gave some examples earlier. These are the real faces of people who are going to be affected by what we do here tomorrow on the floor of the Senate, whether we are going to be able to get a vote on the increase in the minimum wage or whether we are going to be denied that opportunity to do so. The minimum wage affects a person such as Cynthia Porter. Cynthia Porter is not on welfare. She works as a certified nursing assistant at a nursing home in Marian, Alabama. When Cynthia comes on duty at 11:00 p.m., she makes rounds. She checks the residents for skin tears and helps them go to the toilet or use a bedpan. She has to make sure she turns the residents every two hours or they will get bedsores, and if bedsores are left unattended, they can get so bad that you can put your fist in them. But there aren't enough people on her shift. Often there are only two nursing assistants for forty-five residents. In addition to responding to the needs of the residents, Cynthia must also wash the wheelchairs, clean up the dining rooms, mop the floors and scrub out the refrigerator, drawers, and closets during her shift. Before she leaves, she helps the residents get dressed for breakfast. For all of this, Cynthia makes $350 every two weeks. She is separated from her husband, who gives her no child support. The first two weeks each month she pays her $150 rent. The next two weeks, she pays her water and her electric bills. It is difficult to afford Clorox or shampoo. Ensuring that her children are fed properly is a stretch, and she is still paying off the bicycles she bought for her children last Christmas. She can't afford a car, so she ends up paying someone to drive her the twenty-five miles to work. And there have been a few days when she couldn't find a ride. ``I walked at twelve o'clock at night,'' she said. ``I'd rather walk and be a little late than call in. I'd rather make the effort. I couldn't just sit here. I don't want to miss a day, otherwise, I might be fired.'' There is no public transportation that would take her to work. I first met Cynthia at a union meeting. She had a quiet, dignified presence with her dark suit and her hair pulled back in a bun. She and twenty-five others from the nursing home--all eighty of her coworkers are African American women like her--gathered in the little brick Masonic building outside of Marian to talk about having a union. Like Cynthia, none has ever gotten a raise of more than 13 cents. Some who had been there ten years were still making $6.00 an hour. She is effectively a minimum wage worker. These are the people this legislation is trying to help. Linda Stevens: The only job she could find with a high school degree and some college courses was a part-time cashier's position at a small market called George and Stanley's, working the night shift from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Not surprisingly, the $5.00 an hour she made at her retail job was not enough to support her and her daughter, so she worked a second job from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. as a receptionist at H&R Block, which paid $5.50 an hour. She liked the work and would have preferred to go full-time, but H&R Block only offered work from January through April. The money from these two part-time jobs still did not cover her bills, so she worked as a lunch supervisor for the Flint public schools from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She had to put planners up on the wall to keep track of her schedule. And even then, she had no benefits. After a year, Linda left her job at George and Stanley's after they refused to give her a 25 cent raise and went to work at Kessell's on the day shift for $5.25 an hour. But Kessell (which has since been purchased by Kroger) would only give her a part-time position and without full-time status, she still did not get benefits. Working three jobs became so exhausting that she left her lunch supervisor position, but had to continue to work her second job at H&R Block. Linda's typical day started at 6:00 a.m. when she got her daughter ready for school. Her job at Kessell started at 7:00 a.m. and ended at 3:00 p.m. She came home, changed, and went to her job at H&R Block at 5:00 p.m. and got off at 10:00 p.m. Her schedule left little time to spend with her daughter. She needs a minimum wage to help that family. Flor Segunda of Newark, NJ: Flor lives in a primarily African-American neighborhood of Newark, New Jersey, with her husband and three children: Jose, who is nine years old; Luis, who is two and a half; and Paul, who is one and a half. To reach Flor's place, you must walk down a flight of concrete stairs, through a narrow hall, and past the washer and dryer. Like most basement apartments, it is damp and dark. One small window allows the only daylight to enter. They pay $700 per month for this two- bedroom apartment without utilities. There are no parks near her apartment and she doesn't have a car. So most days, the children stay inside. At night when most workers are at home, Flor begins her day. She cleans, dusts, vacuums, dumps trash, and straightens the offices of law firms in a large suburban office building in West Orange, New Jersey. Flor is a janitor. She works for a private contractor who contracts with the owners of commercial buildings to provide cleaning services. She would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Finally, Judy Smithfield: Judy Smithfield works in a superstore as a pharmacy technical assistant, a ``pharmacy tech.'' Her 12:00-9:00 p.m. shift begins with a call from a nurse in a doctor's office dictating a prescription over the phone or a customer at the counter giving her a prescription. Once she has the information, she gives it to the pharmacist to process in the computer. Then it is Judy's responsibility to check that information and get the proper medication from the shelf. She counts the pills that are prescribed, puts them into the bottle, affixes the proper label to the medication, gives the filled prescription to the pharmacist for her review, and puts it in the proper bin for the customer to pick up. Once the customer arrives, Judy must ensure that she has the right prescription and that the proper forms are filled out. She must ask the customer whether they understand the prescription, whether they want counseling or have any further questions. Their response must be put in writing. There are two pharmacy techs and three pharmacists on Judy's shift that fill over 400 prescriptions per day. If the pharmacy gets behind in the prescriptions, Judy stays late, sometimes until midnight. Many times she works six days a week because they don't have enough help. Her feet and back ache from standing all day. This will help Judy. I want to conclude again by talking about the impact of the minimum wage and the failure of increasing the minimum wage on families, particularly on children. I pointed out earlier we have 35 million Americans, according to the Department of Agriculture, who are hungry or living on the edge of hunger for economic reasons--35 million in a country of 290 million. Today 300,000 more families are hungry than there were 3 years ago. The 2003 survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that looked at hunger found effectively 39 percent of the adults requesting food assistance were employed. A leading cause of hunger is low-paying jobs. Emergency food assistance increased by 14 percent. Of those requesting emergency food assistance, 59 percent were members of families with children and elderly parents. City officials recommend raising of the Federal minimum wage as the way the Federal Government could alleviate hunger. This is their No. 1 recommendation. This is the survey of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Republican and Democrat alike, for raising the minimum wage. Finally, I have the excellent report of the National Urban League, October 2002. I will read just parts of it. In the foreword, it says: Too often, changes in the minimum wage are viewed as poorly targeted to the needs of America's working families. Minimum wage workers are too often presented as teenagers, or wives in middle class families. Yet, the clear implications of this study are that the proposed increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.65 an hour would move 1.4 million American households to the level of being food secure, having enough money to buy nutritious and safe food for their families. And, a disproportionate share of the households that would benefit would be African American or Hispanic. Single parent households would also benefit disproportionately from an increase in the minimum wage. Again raising the minimum wage is a clear policy solution for helping meet the needs of America's poor children. Then it goes on in the executive summary: Second, we show that increases in the minimum wage raised the food security of households in which the householder, principal person in the household, has no more than a high school diploma or is a single parent or both. The increases in the minimum wage lessened hunger in all households, but particularly in low-income households and in those households in which the householder was less educated, African-American, Hispanic or was a single parent. Finally, I will include in the Record the findings. These are briefly the findings. We find that: (1) Increases in the Federal minimum wage to $4.25 in October of 1996 and $5.15 per hour in September 1997-- That was 7 years ago-- reduced hunger among all households and in particular, in low-income households where individuals had completed no more than a high school degree. . . . Hunger is defined as a psychological condition where household members experience an uneasy or painful sensation caused by the involuntary lack of food. (2) Relative to the general population, food security rates are lower among households in which the householder has no more than a high school degree. . . . (3) A direct relationship between food security and increases in the minimum wage was observed following two modest increases in the minimum wage in 1996 and 1997--when food security rates increased slightly; and following administration of the Food Security Supplement . . . of 1995. Food security rates also increased modestly following 1995. . . . (4) Inner city households have the highest levels of food insecurity, followed by suburban and rural households. Other studies have demonstrated that groups most-at-risk for food insecurity are those who are most economically vulnerable, and whose households are most directly impacted by increases in the minimum wage. The failure of our increase in the minimum wage is wrong because Americans believe people who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should not have to live in poverty in the United States of America. And it is wrong because we now have millions of children who are going hungry every night, and millions of families who are going hungry as well. We can make some difference by increasing the minimum wage. It is now at a dramatically decreased level of purchasing power. Certainly, we can do better. We should do better. How can we possibly tolerate the conditions of our fellow Americans and not say that we need an increase in the minimum wage? I hope we will be able to do so tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today would have been the 77th birthday of one of our country's greatest leaders, Cesar Chavez. His famous motto in life ``si se puede,'' ``yes we can'' is his legacy to all of us, and we are a better nation because of his life-long struggle to bring dignity and freedom for the working men and women and their families he cared so much about and did so much to help. Cesar Chavez made powerful contributions to our society and has inspired countless individuals who continue his battle against injustice. My brother Robert Kennedy came to know Cesar Chavez well, and a special friendship grew. Bobby instinctively shared Cesar's extraordinary commitment to migrant farm workers, and his dedication to non-violent change, and he too was inspired by Cesar's passionate conviction. My brother was the only public official who was there in March of 1968, at the end of Cesar's 25-day fast for non-violence to help the grape workers. He was deeply moved by that day and called Cesar ``one of the most heroic figures of our time.'' Cesar is best known today for his leadership in founding the United Farmworkers of America, the largest farm workers' union in U.S. history. Under his 30 year leadership, it became the strongest and most consistent voice for farm workers' rights. His determination and vision led the fight for fair wages, decent medical coverage, reasonable pension benefits and better living conditions for their workers. His legacy guides us today as we continue the battle to enable today's farm workers to live and work with respect and dignity. In fact, the Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act we hope to enact in this Congress is based on the far-reaching agreement between the UFW and the agriculture industry to treat immigrant farm workers fairly. Large numbers of men and women employed in agriculture are currently undocumented. Often they risk danger and even death to cross our borders only to be exploited by unscrupulous employers who pay inhuman wages under harsh and often dangerous job conditions. Our bill gives these deserving farm workers and their families the opportunity to earn legal status, and it gives agricultural businesses a legal workforce. By passing this bill, we pay tribute to Cesar and we win an important battle in ending injustices in farm work across America. The legacy of Cesar Chavez also reminds us of the important role of education in helping children with the greatest need to have a better future. We know we can do much more to guarantee equality of opportunity, and fulfill the promise of a good education for millions of children living in poverty, especially for the children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. Too often, schools attended by migrant families are substandard, and college is an impossible dream. Migrant students are among the most disadvantaged youth in the nation. Current estimates place their school dropout rate between 50 and 60 percent. Cesar Chavez put it best in his own words: It is not enough to teach our young people to be successful . . . so they can realize their ambitions, so they can earn good livings, so they can accumulate the material things that this society bestows. Those are worthwhile goals. But it is not enough to progress as individuals while our friends and neighbors are left behind. Those words remind us of our commitment to provide a better future for today's youth; especially those who live in poverty, work long hours in the fields, and are in the greatest need. They remind us of our commitment stated in law, but far from reality, to leave no child behind. They remind us of our unmet responsibility to achieve equal educational opportunity for all, invest in our nation's communities, and make a difference in the lives of millions of children. Cesar's famous ``Prayer for the Farm Worker's Struggle'' sums up the qualities of strength, wisdom and compassion that are essential as we carry on his mission: Show me the suffering of the most miserable, so I will know my people's plight. Free me to pray for others, for you are in every person. Help me to take responsibility for my own life, so that I can be free at last. Give me honesty and patience, so that I can work with other workers. Bring forth song and celebration, so that the Spirit will live among us. Let the Spirit flourish and grow, so that we will never tire of the struggle. Let us remember those who have died for justice, for they have given us life. Help us love those who hate us, so we can change the world. Happy birthday, Cesar--may your vision continue to guide us now as we seek a better world.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2004. I especially commend Senator Roberts for his leadership, assistance, and support on this important legislation. This bipartisan bill is being introduced on the final day of National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, as a sign of our intention to do all we can to see that more effective action is taken as soon as possible to combat this deadly disease. Our goal in this is to give every American with health insurance the right to access a full range of screening tests for colorectal cancer. The statistics are staggering. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men and women in America. Last year, 148,000 people were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and 56,000 mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons died from the disease. Tragically these deaths are taking place despite the fact that this form of cancer is curable 90 percent of the time if detected early. We know that screening can discover this cancer early, in fact, so early that growths can be identified and removed before they become cancerous. For no other disease are the guidelines for screening better defined and nationally recognized as the best way to prevent deaths from this cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer will save lives, and it will also avoid thousands of dollars in later treatment costs for each patient. The Institute of Medicine estimated that such screenings cost less than 1 percent of later treatment for this cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer is obviously the right thing to do, and it is also the cost- effective thing to do. The real tragedy is that fewer than half of those who fit the guidelines for screening are actually screened within the right timeframes, if at all. As a result, only 37 percent of colorectal cancers are diagnosed at the early, most curable stages. Many citizens are aware, at least vaguely, that they should probably be screened, but they can't afford it, because it is not covered by their health insurance. In our view, no American should be denied access to these lifesaving screening procedures simply because their health insurance company will not pay for it. Every American with insurance should have access to screening procedures that will prevent cancer. By requiring insurers to cover colorectal cancer screening, we will save thousands of lives each year, and save money too. Some argue that it is wrong to require insurers to cover a test for a specific disease. Yet the evidence is clear that screening makes colorectal cancer preventable, treatable, and beatable. National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month has brought new attention to the fact we can eliminate a disease that causes immeasurable suffering and sadness in the lives of millions of Americans. With this legislation, we can save hundreds of thousands of lives over the next 5 years. The need is clear and so is the solution. As National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, let us do the right thing and work together to approve the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2004.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2004. I especially commend Senator Roberts for his leadership, assistance, and support on this important legislation. This bipartisan bill is being introduced on the final day of National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, as a sign of our intention to do all we can to see that more effective action is taken as soon as possible to combat this deadly disease. Our goal in this is to give every American with health insurance the right to access a full range of screening tests for colorectal cancer. The statistics are staggering. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men and women in America. Last year, 148,000 people were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and 56,000 mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons died from the disease. Tragically these deaths are taking place despite the fact that this form of cancer is curable 90 percent of the time if detected early. We know that screening can discover this cancer early, in fact, so early that growths can be identified and removed before they become cancerous. For no other disease are the guidelines for screening better defined and nationally recognized as the best way to prevent deaths from this cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer will save lives, and it will also avoid thousands of dollars in later treatment costs for each patient. The Institute of Medicine estimated that such screenings cost less than 1 percent of later treatment for this cancer. Screening for colorectal cancer is obviously the right thing to do, and it is also the cost- effective thing to do. The real tragedy is that fewer than half of those who fit the guidelines for screening are actually screened within the right timeframes, if at all. As a result, only 37 percent of colorectal cancers are diagnosed at the early, most curable stages. Many citizens are aware, at least vaguely, that they should probably be screened, but they can't afford it, because it is not covered by their health insurance. In our view, no American should be denied access to these lifesaving screening procedures simply because their health insurance company will not pay for it. Every American with insurance should have access to screening procedures that will prevent cancer. By requiring insurers to cover colorectal cancer screening, we will save thousands of lives each year, and save money too. Some argue that it is wrong to require insurers to cover a test for a specific disease. Yet the evidence is clear that screening makes colorectal cancer preventable, treatable, and beatable. National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month has brought new attention to the fact we can eliminate a disease that causes immeasurable suffering and sadness in the lives of millions of Americans. With this legislation, we can save hundreds of thousands of lives over the next 5 years. The need is clear and so is the solution. As National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, let us do the right thing and work together to approve the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act of 2004.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. The American people understand fairness. They believe if you work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, you should not have to live in poverty in the richest country in the world. The American people understand that is basically what we are talking about, fairness and respect for people who are doing a day's work. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of an increase in the minimum wage, and for actually a good deal higher wage than the one we are proposing.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is in another 20 minutes. The point has been made about how this legislation is slowing the bill down. We indicated we are prepared to vote, at least in 20 minutes, on this legislation. We were prepared yesterday to vote on it. The problem is, it has been now 7 years, 7 years where we have been denied the right to vote on it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first I thank my good friend from California, Senator Boxer, for offering this amendment. It is one I feel strongly about and support strongly. I thank our ranking leader on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his support. I will make a brief comment to my friend, and he is my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, about his concerns and objections to considering the minimum-wage increase on this bill that is an attempt to move people off welfare into work. In reviewing the legislation that is before us, I would like to direct the chairman and those Members of the Senate who feel this amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill, page 4 of the committee's report where we have the Secretary, Tommy Thompson, talking about: The most humane social program is a healthy and independent family that has a capacity and ability to have a good, paying job. This is the Secretary of HHS testifying in favor of the overall legislation. He is talking about having a good-paying job. We know a minimum wage job today is not a good-paying job. The Boxer- Kennedy amendment will make it closer to a good-paying job. Then it continues, on page 12, the reason for change: The Committee bill provides for States to continue their successful efforts to move welfare recipients into good jobs. What are good jobs? The minimum wage jobs at $5.15 or the jobs at $7 an hour? States have directed considerable resources into moving welfare recipients into meaningful employment. That is what we are talking about, meaningful employment. This is what the Secretary of HHS said. This is the reason for change in the committee bill. That is what it is all about. Then continue on to page 21: The Committee bill recognizes the success received by TANF and the Work First programs are a result of a sustained emphasis on adult attachment to the workforce. ``Attachment to the workforce'' means having a paycheck, a decent job. I believe this legislation is directly relevant to the underlying theme of the legislation. But I say to my friend from Iowa, if he wants to give me a time agreement on a separate bill and give us the assurance we will be able to consider it by the first of May, as an independent bill here on the floor of the Senate, with a time limit, I would be glad to urge my friend and colleague from California to withdraw the amendment and take that, if that is agreeable to the Senator. We are not trying to hold the bill down. I will propose a time limit on my amendment. It is now 10 after 3. I propose unanimous consent that we vote on this amendment at 3:30.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be happy to yield. After 5 or 6 minutes more of my presentation, I will be glad to yield for questions. The child poverty rate is substantially higher, two to three times higher than most other western industrial nations. Reducing child poverty is one of the best investments Americans can make in their Nation's future. More children will enter school ready to learn; we will have more successful schools; there will be fewer school dropouts; we will have better child health with less strain on the hospitals and public health systems; we will have less stress on the juvenile justice system; we will have less child hunger and malnutrition. The fact is, the number of children living in poverty and the number of children going hungry every single day has increased significantly over the period of the last 3 years. The bottom line is, 3 million children have parents who would benefit from a minimum wage increase. We have an opportunity to do something about the 12 million American children living in poverty and the 400,000 children more living in poverty today than were living in poverty 2 years ago. We can make a difference because so many of these children are living in families with minimum wage earnings. That is the issue. We hear the arguments on the other side, and we can answer those in terms of inflation and unemployment. Those questions have been answered. I will not take the time unless we are challenged on the issues, including historical unemployment figures and all the rest. This is about children. It is about women. As I mentioned, and then I will yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, this issue is about women because 61 percent of those who earn the minimum wage are women. It is about children. We know that 3 million children live in families whose parent is working in a minimum wage job. So it is about women and children. It is about civil rights because a great number of these minimum wage workers are men and women of color. It is about fairness because Americans understand if you want to work 40 hours a week and can work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you should not have to live in poverty. Americans understand that. The final point I make, these minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity and pride. Too often around here we say: Minimum wage workers, we have other things to do. These are some of the hardest working, most decent men and women we have in this country, who take a sense of pride in the work they do, which is menial, tough, repetitive work--cleaning out the buildings of American industry, also working as assistants to teachers, working in nursing homes, looking after the elderly people of this country. This is hard, difficult, challenging work, but they take a sense of pride in it. We have refused to increase the minimum wage now for 7 years. As I have pointed out, this chart shows the history of the increases in the minimum wage. It is not a partisan matter. Going back to 1938, we have the increases under President Roosevelt and President Truman. President Eisenhower increased the minimum wage in 1955. President Kennedy did in 1961; Lyndon Johnson in 1966; President Ford did it in 1974 three different times, for 1974, 1975, and 1976. President Ford, a Republican, did it. President Carter, in 1977; President Bush I did it in 1989; President Clinton in 1996. This has been a bipartisan effort. That is why it is so difficult for many to understand why those on the other side have refused the opportunity to even get a vote. I welcome the chance that we will have this time to get a vote. I point out, and then I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, what moving up to $7 an hour means to a family earning the minimum wage. It is the equivalent of 2 years of childcare. It is more than 2 years of health care for that family. It is full tuition for a community college degree. It is a year and a half of heat and electricity. It is more than a year of groceries, and more than 9 months of rent. It is real money for real people who are working hard, playing by the rules, and are waiting for this body to take some action. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is that a question? I am about to yield the floor generally, if you could get to the question. What is the question? I would be glad to answer.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the fact is self-evident and should be to all Members. We do not need charts. If you are making $5.50 an hour and you are the principal bread winner in the family with a child, that child will live in poverty. You can have all the charts in the world, but that is self-evident. That ought to be a given. We do not have to dispute that. I hope we would not have to dispute that. Those are the hard, difficult facts. The issues about the variance in terms of child poverty, obviously, when we have the dramatic expansion as during the period of the 1990s under President Clinton, we saw the creation of 22 million jobs. We saw that spill over into a reduction of child poverty. That is the answer. The fact is we have not seen that. In the last 3 years, we have seen a growth in poverty in the total number of people who are living in poverty, including children, because we have lost 3 million jobs--effectively maybe 2 million overall--but 2 million jobs. The fact is, the new jobs that are being created are paying about 25 percent less than those they are replacing. With all respect to the Senator, the idea that at $5.15 an hour when you have a child or two children they are not going to be living in poverty escapes me completely. I do not think we need any chart to show that. That is fairly self-evident. I do not know what the situation is in Pennsylvania, but I do know in the other States I have visited in recent times, people cannot make it. At $5.15 an hour, how is a parent going to be able to go out and rent an apartment and provide food for their children? That does not make sense. The fact is, almost half of the new jobs that were being created for those who have moved off welfare now have disappeared. That is a different issue, and we could debate that, and I would be glad to. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is relevant to the underlying issue. As I have raised before with Secretary Thompson, the purpose of this bill is to try to get people into somewhat decent jobs. We raised this over 2\1/2\ years, up to $7 an hour, almost a living wage. We think in this country, at this time, this is something that is called for, and we are prepared to move ahead with it. I see the manager on this bill. We can either take some more time or we can try to move toward whatever outcome the floor managers would want. If we want some additional debate on it, we are glad to do so. But if you want to move toward a conclusion of it, we are glad to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for commenting on my sincerity because I indicated yesterday I was interested in a 15-minute time limitation on this amendment, and it was objected to by the Senator from Iowa. We indicated we were willing to vote at 3:30 today, and it was objected to. So now the Senator, if he wants to amend that request--since these are directly related to the issues of employment--to include an amendment with a 1-hour time limitation on the issue of overtime, an amendment with a 1-hour time limitation in terms of unemployment compensation, and then to have relevant amendments and time limitations on those amendments of up to an hour, I would not object to that. So, Mr. President, I object, and I offer a unanimous consent request along the lines I mentioned.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, we are beginning to see what we have seen at other times; that is, on the other side there is objection. We listened to them talk about how they wanted to have workers work in this country, and now, evidently, there is objection. And I do not consider this to be by my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, but there is clearly an objection by the Republican leadership to get a consideration. I ask unanimous consent that before we have final passage, we have a vote, up and down, on this amendment.