Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the ``H-2A Reform and Agricultural Worker Adjustment Act of 2001.'' The Nation needs and deserves an agricultural policy that protects farm workers, provides hard-working foreign-born workers with the opportunity to become legal permanent residents, and provides the growers of fruits, vegetables and other commodities with an adequate and legal labor supply. Our bill works toward achieving this goal. It establishes a legalization program for foreign-born farm workers, guarantees certain labor protections for all farm workers, and improves wages and working conditions. We cannot continue to ignore the fact that large numbers of the persons employed in agriculture today are undocumented. Illegal workers are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers, who can get away with paying them very low wages, exposing them to dangerous working conditions, lowering the wages for all farm workers. Agricultural workers are indispensable members of the workforce. We need an agricultural policy that recognizes their contributions and rewards their work. Under our bill, 500,000 farm workers currently working in the United States, without employment authorization, would be able to adjust their status to legal permanent resident. Persons who work in agriculture for at least 90 days would be able to obtain temporary residency status and would be able to adjust their status to legal permanent residency after working 90 days in three out of the next four years in agriculture. Because agricultural work is seasonal and varies throughout the United States, workers would be permitted to change employers and accept non-agricultural work to supplement their incomes during this period. These changes will benefit both workers and growers. It will benefit all farm workers by improving wages and working conditions. It will provide a means for foreign-born workers to become permanent residents. By obtaining legal status, workers will no longer be forced to endure substandard wages and working conditions for fear of being deported. Agriculture is a time-sensitive industry. Growers must have an immediate, reliable and legal workforce at harvest time. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field for lack of a labor force. By these changes, growers will have access to dependable, hard-working employees and a workforce that will not be suddenly reduced by INS raids. Our bill also keeps families together. Immediate family members would be granted legal status at the beginning, and they would be eligible for adjustment to permanent resident status after the worker completes the work requirement. This change will keep hard-working persons and their families together. Our proposal also offers labor protections to agricultural workers that are long overdue. For example, farm workers could not be fired from agricultural employment except for just cause, and they would receive credit for any day lost because of on-the-job injuries. Agriculture is a thriving industry, generating billions of dollars in revenue each year. Yet farm workers are among the lowest-paid members of the workforce. Three-quarters of all farm workers earn less than $10,000 a year. Over three-fifths of farm worker households live in poverty. Only half of farm workers own a car, and even fewer own a home or even a trailer. To improve the wages and working conditions of all agricultural workers, we must give them the basic labor rights available to other U.S. workers. Central to our bill is the belief that collective bargaining provides the best way to improve wages and working conditions, and stabilize the agricultural labor market. The bill creates a Federal right for farm workers to organize, provides incentives for H-2A employers to accept collective bargaining, establishes a streamlined application process for employers with collective bargaining agreements, and exempts H-2A employers with such agreements from increased H-2A user fees. The bill also prohibits the use of H-2A workers as strikebreakers. These procedures will secure improved wages and working conditions for all agricultural workers, and protect workers from unfair wages by maintaining wage standards. The bill ends discrimination against H-2A workers by giving them, for the first time, the same labor protections as U.S. workers. It gives guest workers the same labor rights as U.S. workers, by ending the unfair exclusion of H-2A workers from coverage under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Coverage under that Act means that H-2A workers will have the right to bring a private action to enforce working arrangements with their employers, rather than depend on the Department of Labor to protect their rights. The bill also protects U.S. workers by removing the incentive to discriminate against them by requiring the employers of H-2A workers to pay the equivalent FICA and FUTA taxes to a new fund. The money from the fund will be used to improve labor management practices to enhance the productivity of the existing labor force and to support demonstration projects to improve farm labor management, including projects on recruitment, workplace literacy and training, health and safety, and the development of labor-saving technology. Last year, bipartisan negotiations between the House and Senate resulted in an agreement on migrant agricultural workers that both the agricultural employers and the farm workers supported. The compromise created an earned adjustment program for undocumented farm workers and a reformed H-2A temporary worker program. This compromise represented a positive step toward much needed reform. Unfortunately, efforts to enact this agreement failed but I hope we will succeed in this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the H-2A Reform and Agricultural Worker Adjustment Act of 2001. These reforms are long overdue, and will improve the lives and working conditions of dedicated, hard-working farm workers.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, each year the American Immigration Law Foundation and the American Immigration Lawyers Association sponsor a national writing contest on immigration. Thousands of fifth grade students across the country participate in the competition, answering the question, ``Why I'm Glad America is a Nation of Immigrants.'' In fact, ``A Nation of Immigrants'' was the title of a book that President Kennedy wrote in 1958, when he was a Senator. In this book, and throughout his life, he honored America's heritage and history of immigration as a principal source of the Nation's progress and achievements. I had the privilege of serving as one of the judges for this year's contest, and was very impressed by the young writers. In their essays, they showed great pride in the Nation's diversity and its immigrant heritage, and many students told the story of their own family's immigration. The winner of this year's contest is Crystal D. Armstead, a fifth grader from Philadelphia. In her essay, she reminds us of America's immigrant foundation and the importance of honoring our diversity. She describes how immigration has affected her family and how it enriches her life today. Other students honored for their creative essays were Robert Banovic of Pittsburgh, PA, Megan Imrie of Orland Park, IL, Carter Jones of Huntington Beach, CA, and Amanda Tabata of Honolulu, HI. I believe that these award-winning essays in the ``Celebrate America'' contest will be of interest to all of us in the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record. There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Frist and I are introducing the ``Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act of 2001.'' Every 2 minutes, sudden cardiac arrest strikes down another person. Cardiac arrest can strike at any time without any warning. Without rapid intervention, is unavoidable. One thousand people will die today from cardiac arrest, and 200,000 people will lose their lives this year to this devastating disease. The good news is that we know that 90 percent of cardiac arrest victims can be saved, if immediate access is available to an automated external defibrillator, an AED. We could save thousands of lives every year if AEDs are available in every public building. Yet few communities have programs to make this technology widely accessible. That is why Senator Frist and I today are introducing the ``Community AED Act''. Its goal is to provide funding for programs to increase access to emergency defibrillation. It will place AEDs in public areas like schools, workplaces, community centers, and other locations where people gather. It will provide training to use and maintain the devices, and funding for coordination with emergency medical personnel. Furthermore, it also funds the development of community-based projects to enhance AED access and place them in unique settings where access is more difficult to achieve. Our bill also emphasizes monitoring cardiac arrest in children and putting AEDs in schools--so that we can also deal with cardiac arrest when it affects our youth. Sudden cardiac arrest is a tragedy for families all across America. Communities that have already implemented programs to increase public access to AEDs--like the extremely successful ``First Responder Defibrillator Program'' in Boston--have been able to achieve survival rates of up to 50 percent. That's 100,000 lives that we can save each year if every community implements a program like this one. This bill will enable communities to save lives in public buildings, in workplaces, and in schools all across the nation, and I urge you to stand with Senator Frist and I in support of this legislation-- legislation that will have a lifesaving impact on us all. I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary for the ``Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act of 2001'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Frist, to introduce the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act. Stroke is a cruel affliction that takes the lives and blights the health of millions of Americans. Senator Frist and I have worked closely on legislation to establish new initiatives to reduce the grim toll taken by stroke, and I commend him for his leadership. We are joined in proposing this important legislation by our colleagues on the Health Committee, Senators Dodd, Hutchinson, Jeffords, Collins, Bingaman, Edwards, and Murray. The STOP Stroke Act is also supported by a broad coalition of organizations representing patients and the health care community. Stroke is a national tragedy that leaves no American community unscarred. Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Every minute of every day, somewhere in America, a person suffers a stroke. Every three minutes, a person dies from one. Strokes take the lives of nearly 160,000 Americans each year. Even for those who survive an attack, stroke can have devastating consequences. Over half of all stroke survivors are left with a disability. Since few Americans recognize the symptoms of stroke, crucial hours are often lost before patients receive medical care. The average time between the onset of symptoms and medical treatment is a shocking 13 hours. Emergency medical technicians are often not taught how to recognize and manage the symptoms of stroke. Rapid administration of clot-dissolving drugs can dramatically improve the outcome of stroke, yet fewer than 3 percent of stroke patients now receive such medication. If this lifesaving medication were delivered promptly to all stroke patients, as many as 90,000 Americans could be spared the disabling aftermath of stroke. Even in hospitals, stroke patients often do not receive the care that could save their lives. Treatment of patients by specially trained health care providers increases survival and reduces disability due to stroke, but a neurologist is the attending physician for only about one in ten stroke patients. To save lives, reduce disabilities and improve the quality of stroke care, the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention, STOP Stroke, Act authorizes important public health initiatives to help patients with symptoms of stroke receive timely and effective care. The Act establishes a grant program for States to implement systems of stroke care that will give health professionals the equipment and training they need to treat this disorder. The initial point of contact between a stroke patient and medical care is usually an emergency medical technician. Grants authorized by the Act may be used to train emergency medical personnel to provide more effective care to stroke patients in the crucial first few moments after an attack. The Act provides important new resources for States to improve the standard of care given to stroke patients in hospitals. The legislation will assist States in increasing the quality of stroke care available in rural hospitals through improvements in telemedicine. The Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national media campaign to inform the public about the symptoms of stroke, so that patients receive prompt medical care. The bill also creates the Paul Coverdell Stroke Registry and Clearinghouse, which will collect data about the care of stroke patients and assist in the development of more effective treatments. Finally, the STOP Stroke Act establishes continuing education programs for medical professionals in the use of new techniques for the prevention and treatment of stroke. These important new initiatives can make a difference in the lives of the thousands of American who suffer a stroke every year. For patients experiencing a stroke, even a few minutes' delay in receiving treatment can make the difference between healthy survival and disability or death. The Act will help make certain that those precious minutes are not wasted. Increased public information on the symptoms of stroke will help stroke patients and their families know to seek medical care promptly. Better training of emergency medical personnel will help ensure that stroke patients receive lifesaving medications when they are most effective. Improved systems of stroke care will help patients receive the quality treatment needed to save lives and reduce disability. This legislation can make a real difference to every community in America, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Frist and myself in supporting the STOP Stroke Act. I ask unanimous consent that additional material and letters of support relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Civil rights is the unfinished business of the Nation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has long prohibited job discrimination based on race, ethnic background, gender, or religion. It is long past time to prohibit such discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that is what the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will do. Its provisions are straight-forward and limited. It prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their sexual orientation when making decisions about hiring, firing, promotion and compensation. It does not require employers to provide domestic partnership benefits, and it does not apply to the armed forces or to religious organizations. It also prohibits the use of quotas and preferential treatment. Too many hard-working Americans are being judged today on their sexual orientation, rather than their ability and qualifications. For example, after working at Red Lobster for several years and receiving excellent reviews, Kendall Hamilton applied for a promotion at the urging of the general manager who knew he was gay. The application was rejected after a co-worker disclosed Kendall's sexual orientation to the management team, and the promotion went instead to an employee of nine months whom Kendall had trained. Kendall was told that his sexual orientation ``was not compatible with Red Lobster's belief in family values,'' and that being gay had destroyed his chances of becoming a manager. Feeling he had no choice, Kendall left the company. Fireman Steve Morrison suffered similar discrimination. His co- workers saw him on the local news protesting an anti-gay initiative, and incorrectly assumed he was gay. He soon lost workplace responsibilities and was the victim of harassment, including hate mail. After lengthy administrative proceedings, he was finally able to have the false charges removed from his record, but he was transferred to another station. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this kind of flagrant discrimination. Businesses of all sizes, labor unions, and a broad religious coalition all strongly support the Employment Non- Discrimination Act. America will not achieve its promise of true justice and equal opportunity for all until we end all forms of discrimination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Frist, to introduce the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act. Stroke is a cruel affliction that takes the lives and blights the health of millions of Americans. Senator Frist and I have worked closely on legislation to establish new initiatives to reduce the grim toll taken by stroke, and I commend him for his leadership. We are joined in proposing this important legislation by our colleagues on the Health Committee, Senators Dodd, Hutchinson, Jeffords, Collins, Bingaman, Edwards, and Murray. The STOP Stroke Act is also supported by a broad coalition of organizations representing patients and the health care community. Stroke is a national tragedy that leaves no American community unscarred. Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Every minute of every day, somewhere in America, a person suffers a stroke. Every three minutes, a person dies from one. Strokes take the lives of nearly 160,000 Americans each year. Even for those who survive an attack, stroke can have devastating consequences. Over half of all stroke survivors are left with a disability. Since few Americans recognize the symptoms of stroke, crucial hours are often lost before patients receive medical care. The average time between the onset of symptoms and medical treatment is a shocking 13 hours. Emergency medical technicians are often not taught how to recognize and manage the symptoms of stroke. Rapid administration of clot-dissolving drugs can dramatically improve the outcome of stroke, yet fewer than 3 percent of stroke patients now receive such medication. If this lifesaving medication were delivered promptly to all stroke patients, as many as 90,000 Americans could be spared the disabling aftermath of stroke. Even in hospitals, stroke patients often do not receive the care that could save their lives. Treatment of patients by specially trained health care providers increases survival and reduces disability due to stroke, but a neurologist is the attending physician for only about one in ten stroke patients. To save lives, reduce disabilities and improve the quality of stroke care, the Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention, STOP Stroke, Act authorizes important public health initiatives to help patients with symptoms of stroke receive timely and effective care. The Act establishes a grant program for States to implement systems of stroke care that will give health professionals the equipment and training they need to treat this disorder. The initial point of contact between a stroke patient and medical care is usually an emergency medical technician. Grants authorized by the Act may be used to train emergency medical personnel to provide more effective care to stroke patients in the crucial first few moments after an attack. The Act provides important new resources for States to improve the standard of care given to stroke patients in hospitals. The legislation will assist States in increasing the quality of stroke care available in rural hospitals through improvements in telemedicine. The Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national media campaign to inform the public about the symptoms of stroke, so that patients receive prompt medical care. The bill also creates the Paul Coverdell Stroke Registry and Clearinghouse, which will collect data about the care of stroke patients and assist in the development of more effective treatments. Finally, the STOP Stroke Act establishes continuing education programs for medical professionals in the use of new techniques for the prevention and treatment of stroke. These important new initiatives can make a difference in the lives of the thousands of American who suffer a stroke every year. For patients experiencing a stroke, even a few minutes' delay in receiving treatment can make the difference between healthy survival and disability or death. The Act will help make certain that those precious minutes are not wasted. Increased public information on the symptoms of stroke will help stroke patients and their families know to seek medical care promptly. Better training of emergency medical personnel will help ensure that stroke patients receive lifesaving medications when they are most effective. Improved systems of stroke care will help patients receive the quality treatment needed to save lives and reduce disability. This legislation can make a real difference to every community in America, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Frist and myself in supporting the STOP Stroke Act. I ask unanimous consent that additional material and letters of support relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Frist and I are introducing the ``Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act of 2001.'' Every 2 minutes, sudden cardiac arrest strikes down another person. Cardiac arrest can strike at any time without any warning. Without rapid intervention, is unavoidable. One thousand people will die today from cardiac arrest, and 200,000 people will lose their lives this year to this devastating disease. The good news is that we know that 90 percent of cardiac arrest victims can be saved, if immediate access is available to an automated external defibrillator, an AED. We could save thousands of lives every year if AEDs are available in every public building. Yet few communities have programs to make this technology widely accessible. That is why Senator Frist and I today are introducing the ``Community AED Act''. Its goal is to provide funding for programs to increase access to emergency defibrillation. It will place AEDs in public areas like schools, workplaces, community centers, and other locations where people gather. It will provide training to use and maintain the devices, and funding for coordination with emergency medical personnel. Furthermore, it also funds the development of community-based projects to enhance AED access and place them in unique settings where access is more difficult to achieve. Our bill also emphasizes monitoring cardiac arrest in children and putting AEDs in schools--so that we can also deal with cardiac arrest when it affects our youth. Sudden cardiac arrest is a tragedy for families all across America. Communities that have already implemented programs to increase public access to AEDs--like the extremely successful ``First Responder Defibrillator Program'' in Boston--have been able to achieve survival rates of up to 50 percent. That's 100,000 lives that we can save each year if every community implements a program like this one. This bill will enable communities to save lives in public buildings, in workplaces, and in schools all across the nation, and I urge you to stand with Senator Frist and I in support of this legislation-- legislation that will have a lifesaving impact on us all. I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary for the ``Community Access to Emergency Defibrillation Act of 2001'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Civil rights is the unfinished business of the Nation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has long prohibited job discrimination based on race, ethnic background, gender, or religion. It is long past time to prohibit such discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that is what the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will do. Its provisions are straight-forward and limited. It prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their sexual orientation when making decisions about hiring, firing, promotion and compensation. It does not require employers to provide domestic partnership benefits, and it does not apply to the armed forces or to religious organizations. It also prohibits the use of quotas and preferential treatment. Too many hard-working Americans are being judged today on their sexual orientation, rather than their ability and qualifications. For example, after working at Red Lobster for several years and receiving excellent reviews, Kendall Hamilton applied for a promotion at the urging of the general manager who knew he was gay. The application was rejected after a co-worker disclosed Kendall's sexual orientation to the management team, and the promotion went instead to an employee of nine months whom Kendall had trained. Kendall was told that his sexual orientation ``was not compatible with Red Lobster's belief in family values,'' and that being gay had destroyed his chances of becoming a manager. Feeling he had no choice, Kendall left the company. Fireman Steve Morrison suffered similar discrimination. His co- workers saw him on the local news protesting an anti-gay initiative, and incorrectly assumed he was gay. He soon lost workplace responsibilities and was the victim of harassment, including hate mail. After lengthy administrative proceedings, he was finally able to have the false charges removed from his record, but he was transferred to another station. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this kind of flagrant discrimination. Businesses of all sizes, labor unions, and a broad religious coalition all strongly support the Employment Non- Discrimination Act. America will not achieve its promise of true justice and equal opportunity for all until we end all forms of discrimination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Children's Adjustment, Relief, and Education Act. This needed legislation will give thousands of immigrant children who are presently unable to obtain a higher education a fair opportunity to realize the American dream. For too many of these children, the highest level of education they can hope to attain is a high school diploma. It is not their lack of ability or their lack of desire which holds these children back. It is the fact that they were born abroad to parents who unlawfully entered this country. Under current law, they are often denied State and Federal aid for higher education. In an economy in which higher education is a prerequisite for higher wages and benefits, the result of current law is to relegate these children to an uncertain future. It is wrong to punish these children for their parents' actions. That is why I strongly support the CARE Act. It will help undocumented children who are in the United States, who have lived a significant portion of their lives in this country, who are of good moral character, and who want to remain in this country and continue their education. It will give them special immigration relief so that they can go to college and eventually become U.S. citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Foundations for Learning Act. I want to thank my son, Patrick for his leadership in developing this legislation. This bill is an extremely important piece of legislation that addresses the whole child's early development. There is no question that healthy emotional and social development are critical to school success. The development of curiosity, self- direction, the ability to cooperate with peers and to exhibit self- control are essential before a child can be ready to learn. Children whose lives are threatened by socioeconomic disadvantage, violence, family disruption and diagnosed disabilities are at a severe disadvantage in the classroom. There is no question these children cannot perform at their highest academic potential. While we are all concerned about reading readiness and children's readiness to learn, we cannot ignore the underlying factors that enable them to learn. We know that children cannot learn when they are hungry or sleepy, but rarely do we stop to think about their emotional ability to learn. Children who are angry, afraid or cannot control their own emotions, or have no sense of self-direction, and ability to resolve conflicts with peers are not ready to learn either. Last month, a national study reported that children who receive more than 30 hours per week of non-parental child care exhibit higher levels of aggressive behavior than those who spend less than 10 hours per week in comparable settings. The study called national attention to the quality of child care that parents entrust the care of their young children to. It also rekindled the Nation's interest in the early years and how these years contribute to a young children's development. As we debate investments in early care and education, we must not underestimate the need to look at the social and emotional readiness of the child that leads to later academic readiness. Studies are showing that increasing numbers of children are unprepared to cope with the demand of school, not because they lack the academic tools, but because they lack the social skills and emotional self-regulation necessary to succeed. In a survey of kindergarten teachers, 46 percent said that at least half of their class had difficulty following directions, 34 percent reported half of the class or more had difficulty working as part of a group, and 20 percent said at least half of the class had problems with social skills. Is it a surprise that children who cannot follow simple directions and get along with their peers cannot learn to read? According to the latest data, 61 percent of children under age 4 are in regularly scheduled child care. With such a high percentage of our youngest children in child care and with such certainty as we have that early care and education has a long-lasting if not permanent impact on an individual's social and academic development, we cannot deny the necessity of ensuring that those providers are equipped to work with all of our children including those with emotional and behavioral problems. Neither can we deny that the most important relationship in a child's life is the one with his or her parents. It is absolutely essential to the child's future success that the parent-child relationship be as healthy as possible. Without a close, dependable relationship with a healthy and responsible adult, a child's potential for growth could be severely and permanently impaired. We must provide high quality education and support not only for children but also for their parents. The goal of this legislation is to enable all children to enter school ready to learn by focusing on the social and emotional development of children ages 0-5. The bill would accomplish this by: providing family support initiatives such as parent training and home visitation to provide intensive early interventions to families of at- risk children; providing consultations and professional development opportunities for child care workers and hiring of behavioral specialists by early childhood service providers and the development of curriculum for use in early childhood settings; providing early intervention services to at-risk children to promote their emotional and social development; and by developing community resources and linkages between early childhood service providers to enhance the quality of services to children. This bill will help communities lay the foundation for school readiness by providing funding to integrate emotional and social development support services into early childhood programs and strengthening the capacity of parents to constructively manage behavior problems. Study after study had shown that intervention can work to increase the quality of early care and educational experiences that children receive. Study after study has shown that financial resources are essential to improving quality of early care and education. Study after study has shown that investments in young children can save costs of adolescents' incarceration tomorrow. Investing in young children is well worth the investment. If we're serious about adequately preparing our children for school and for life, we must provide communities, families, child care providers with the necessary resources to support the development of a healthy whole child. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting and pushing this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Snowe and Senator Rockefeller and many others in introducing the Family Care Act of 2001 to expand health coverage to millions of families. Families across America get up every day, go to work, play by the rules, and still cannot afford the health insurance they need to stay healthy and protect themselves when serious illness strikes. Family Care is a practical, common-sense solution for millions of hardworking families, and it deserves to be a national priority. The legislation we are introducing today will provide health insurance to millions of Americans. And it does so without creating a new program or a new bureaucracy. It builds on the existing Children's Health Insurance Program. By allowing children and their parents to be covered, we can reduce the number of uninsured Americans by one-third. Four years ago we worked together, Republicans and Democrats, to expand coverage to uninsured children in families whose income is too high for Medicaid but not enough to afford private health insurance. The Children's Health Insurance Program has already brought quality health care to over 3 million children, and many more are eligible. Our bill is an important step to build on that initiative. Over 80 percent of children who are uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP have uninsured parents. Expanding CHIP to cover parents as well as children will make a huge difference to millions of working families. We also need to do more to help sign up the large number of children who are already eligible for health coverage but have never enrolled. The numbers are dramatic. Ninety-five percent of low-income uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. If we can sign up these children, we can give almost every child in America a real chance at a healthy childhood. Our legislation includes steps to make it easier for families to register and stay covered. Patients will enroll, and will enroll their children, too. We also know that many families lose coverage because complicated applications and burdensome requirements make it hard to stay insured. Our bill sees that families will have a simple application and that they won't have to enroll over and over again. It also makes sure that families they aren't excluded because that have simple assets like cars. I am pleased that this legislation has so much support in the Finance Committee. In addition to Senator Snowe, we have the support of every single Democrat in that committee. I hope that we can move on this legislation before the August recess. These are long-overdue steps to give millions more Americans the health coverage they deserve. It's a significant step toward the day when every man, woman and child in America has affordable health coverage. The Nation needs both, and I'm hopeful that Congress will enact both as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Foundations for Learning Act. I want to thank my son, Patrick for his leadership in developing this legislation. This bill is an extremely important piece of legislation that addresses the whole child's early development. There is no question that healthy emotional and social development are critical to school success. The development of curiosity, self- direction, the ability to cooperate with peers and to exhibit self- control are essential before a child can be ready to learn. Children whose lives are threatened by socioeconomic disadvantage, violence, family disruption and diagnosed disabilities are at a severe disadvantage in the classroom. There is no question these children cannot perform at their highest academic potential. While we are all concerned about reading readiness and children's readiness to learn, we cannot ignore the underlying factors that enable them to learn. We know that children cannot learn when they are hungry or sleepy, but rarely do we stop to think about their emotional ability to learn. Children who are angry, afraid or cannot control their own emotions, or have no sense of self-direction, and ability to resolve conflicts with peers are not ready to learn either. Last month, a national study reported that children who receive more than 30 hours per week of non-parental child care exhibit higher levels of aggressive behavior than those who spend less than 10 hours per week in comparable settings. The study called national attention to the quality of child care that parents entrust the care of their young children to. It also rekindled the Nation's interest in the early years and how these years contribute to a young children's development. As we debate investments in early care and education, we must not underestimate the need to look at the social and emotional readiness of the child that leads to later academic readiness. Studies are showing that increasing numbers of children are unprepared to cope with the demand of school, not because they lack the academic tools, but because they lack the social skills and emotional self-regulation necessary to succeed. In a survey of kindergarten teachers, 46 percent said that at least half of their class had difficulty following directions, 34 percent reported half of the class or more had difficulty working as part of a group, and 20 percent said at least half of the class had problems with social skills. Is it a surprise that children who cannot follow simple directions and get along with their peers cannot learn to read? According to the latest data, 61 percent of children under age 4 are in regularly scheduled child care. With such a high percentage of our youngest children in child care and with such certainty as we have that early care and education has a long-lasting if not permanent impact on an individual's social and academic development, we cannot deny the necessity of ensuring that those providers are equipped to work with all of our children including those with emotional and behavioral problems. Neither can we deny that the most important relationship in a child's life is the one with his or her parents. It is absolutely essential to the child's future success that the parent-child relationship be as healthy as possible. Without a close, dependable relationship with a healthy and responsible adult, a child's potential for growth could be severely and permanently impaired. We must provide high quality education and support not only for children but also for their parents. The goal of this legislation is to enable all children to enter school ready to learn by focusing on the social and emotional development of children ages 0-5. The bill would accomplish this by: providing family support initiatives such as parent training and home visitation to provide intensive early interventions to families of at- risk children; providing consultations and professional development opportunities for child care workers and hiring of behavioral specialists by early childhood service providers and the development of curriculum for use in early childhood settings; providing early intervention services to at-risk children to promote their emotional and social development; and by developing community resources and linkages between early childhood service providers to enhance the quality of services to children. This bill will help communities lay the foundation for school readiness by providing funding to integrate emotional and social development support services into early childhood programs and strengthening the capacity of parents to constructively manage behavior problems. Study after study had shown that intervention can work to increase the quality of early care and educational experiences that children receive. Study after study has shown that financial resources are essential to improving quality of early care and education. Study after study has shown that investments in young children can save costs of adolescents' incarceration tomorrow. Investing in young children is well worth the investment. If we're serious about adequately preparing our children for school and for life, we must provide communities, families, child care providers with the necessary resources to support the development of a healthy whole child. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting and pushing this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his courtesy. I will take just a moment. I know I speak for the 13 families from Massachusetts who lost loved ones; and they continue to be strongly supportive of this legislation. I thank the Senator from Maryland for all of his work and for his timeless energetic leadership on this extremely important issue. We are reminded every day that we live in a dangerous world. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, we have been listening to the proposal of the administration about antiballistic missile systems. We have been watching the leaders of the great industrial nations meeting in Europe. We have seen President Bush and President Putin meeting to talk about nuclear weapons. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, all of us are convinced the great threat to the United States is in the form of terrorism: nuclear proliferation, bioterrorism, computer terrorism, but it is terrorism. That is the principal threat to the safety and security of the people of the United States and our allies. We are relentless in dealing with the state of terrorism around the world. We spend a great deal of money doing that. The best way we can deal with the issue of terrorism is to show persistence, consistency, and as much tough-mindedness as the terrorists. The way to do that is to not forget and not forgive the brutal attacks and killings and assassinations of the Americans and citizens of 22 other countries in the Pan Am 103 disaster. Members of Congress, and those who talk about wanting to deal with terrorism, ought to be here every single day. Unless we are going to be persistent and unless we are going to be tough-minded and unless we are going to deal with this and demonstrate to the world we are serious about dealing with the problems of state-sponsored terrorism, no matter how much we are going to spend on ballistic systems, no matter how much we will spend on the nonproliferation of weapons, how much we spend on intelligence, it will undermine our effectiveness. The matter before the Senate sends a clear message, that we have not forgotten about state-sponsored terrorism in Libya. It is as clear as that. According to the State Department, Iran continues to be ``the most active state sponsor of terrorism.'' Sanctions should continue on that nation. There is also a compelling foreign policy rationale for extending sanctions on Libya. Easing sanctions on Libya by allowing the law to expire would have a far-reaching negative effect on the battle against international terrorism and the 12-year pursuit of justice for the 270 victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Current law requires the President to impose at least two out of six sanctions on foreign companies that invest more than $40 million in one year in Libya's energy sector. The President may waive the sanctions on the ground that doing so is important to the U.S. national interest. For Libya, the law terminates if the President determines that Libya has fulfilled the requirements of all U.N. resolutions relating to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Those conditions, which were imposed by the international community, require the Government of Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of its intelligence officer, disclose information about its involvement in the bombing, provide appropriate compensation for the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103, and fully renounce international terrorism. President Bush has emphasized his support for these conditions. As he stated on April 19, ``We've made it clear to the Libyans that sanctions will remain until such time as they not only compensate for the bombing of the aircraft, but also admit their guilt and express remorse.'' Yet the Government of Libya continues to refuse to meet the conditions of the international community. Until it does, both the United States and the international community should continue to impose sanctions on the regime. Despite the conventional wisdom that economic sanctions do not work, they have been effective in the case of Libya. As a result of the United Nations sanctions, the U.S. sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, the Libyan Government finally agreed in 1999 to a trial by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands of two Libyans indicted for the bombing. Last January 31, one of the defendants, a Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted of murder for that atrocity. The court's decision clearly implicated the Libyan Government. The conviction was a significant diplomatic and legal victory for the world community, for our nation, which was the real target of the terrorist attack, and for the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103. The Iran Libya Sanctions Act is also intended to help level the playing field for American companies, which have been prohibited from investing in Libya by a Presidential order issued by President Reagan in 1986. The statute enacted in 1996 imposed sanctions on foreign companies that invest more than $40 million in any year in the Libyan energy sector. The objective of the 1996 law is to create a disincentive for foreign companies to invest in Libya and help ensure that Amercian firms are not disadvantaged by the U.S. sanctions. Since the sanctions on U.S. firms will continue, it is essential to extend the sanctions on foreign firms as well. The administration has indicated that it has no evidence of violations of the law by foreign companies. But some foreign companies are clearly poised to invest substantially in the Libyan petroleum sector, in violation of the law. A German company, Wintershall, is reportedly considering investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the Libyan oil industry in violation of the law. Allowing current law to lapse before the conditions specified by the international community are met would give a green light to foreign companies to invest in Libya, putting American companies at a clear disadvantage. It would reward the leader of Libya, Colonel Qadhafi, for his continuing refusal to comply with the U.N. resolutions. It would set an unwise precedent of disregard for U.N. Security Council Resolutions. It would undermine our ongoing diplomatic efforts in the Security Council to prevent the international sanctions from being permanently lifted until Libya complies with the U.N. conditions. And it would prematurely signal a warming in U.S.-Libyan relations. Our European allies would undoubtedly welcome the expiration of the U.S. sanctions. European companies are eager to increase their investments in Libya, but they do not want to be sanctioned by the United States. They are ready to close the book on the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and open a new chapter in relations with Libya. But the pursuit of justice is not only for American citizens. Citizens of 22 countries were murdered on Pan Am flight 103, including citizens of many of our allies. The current sanctions were enacted on behalf of these citizens as well. Our government should be actively working to persuade European countries that it is premature to rehabilitate Libya. I am especially pleased that two modifications to the Libya section make by the House International Relations Committee are included in this legislation. I commend Chairman Sarbanes for his leadership by including these provisions in his mark. The first modification reduces the threshold for a violation in Libya from $40 million to $20 million. Under current law, a foreign company can invest $40 million in Libya before sanctions kick in, but it can only invest $20 million in Iran. When the law was originally drafted, the threshold for both Iran and Libya was $40 million. When it was reduced for Iran, it was not reduced for Libya. It should have been. The threshold for a violation should be $20 million for both Iran and Libya. The other modification closes a loophole in the law that allows oil companies to expand upon contracts that were signed before the current law was enacted. A number of companies which signed contracts before ILSA became law are expanding their operations, such as by developing fields adjacent to those in which they made their original investment, and calling this expansion a part of the original contract. The law should cover modifications to existing contracts and agreements. Even if the original contract pre-dates ILSA, subsequent investments that expand operations should be treated as a new contract. This point should be clarified in the law, and the administration should aggressively seek the information necessary to enforce it. I ask unanimous consent that a letter written by the President of the Victims of Pan Am flight 103, Inc. asking the Congress to make these modifications to existing law be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. These families, as all families, are enormously important. Many have been out there at Arlington and had Presidents of the United States meet with them. Many have followed closely the developments that have taken place regarding the trial. Many of us have spent a good deal of time with these families. If we are going to keep faith with these families, if we are going to be serious about dealing with State-sponsored terrorism, if we are going to at least be able to have some impact on countries that may be thinking a little bit about sponsoring some terrorism around--if they know the United States is going to continue to lead the world in not forgetting and not forgiving State-sponsored terrorism, it may make some difference and it may result in the saving of American lives. It certainly can help move us so hopefully someday we get a sense of justice out of the loss of lives as we know them in the Pan Am 103 tragedy. Extending the law that requires sanctions on foreign companies that invest in Libya for another five years is in both the security interest of the United States and the security interest of the international community. Profits in Libya should not come at the expense of progress against international terrorism and justice for the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103. Seventy-eight Members of the Senate have cosponsored legislation to extend the Iran Libya Sanctions Act for five years, and S. 1218 was approved by a vote of 19-2 by the Senate Banking Committee. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation without delay.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask that the following article from the Wall Street Journal, dated July 19, 2001, be printed in the Record. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2001] [By Rick Wartzman] Falling Behind--As Officials Lost Faith in the Minimum Wage, Pat Williams Lived it Shreveport, LA.--Night had fallen by the time Pat Williams, hungry and bone tired, arrived home to find the little red ticket mocking the more than 10 hours of toil she had just put in. ``Oh, Lord,'' she said, reaching into her mailbox, ``what is this?'' She swatted a mosquito, held the ticket to the light above her front stoop and took in the bad news: Reliant Energy Inc. had cut off her gas because her account was $477 overdue. ``I ain't going to sweat it,'' she muttered over and over. Clearly, though, she was wound tight, and soon began puffing on a succession of discount cigarettes. It was early April, and Ms. Williams was dressed in the dark blue uniform that she wears at her first job, caring for the aged and infirm at a nursing home. Atop that was the 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 $5.55 an hour--barely above the minimum wage--even though she has been there more than 10 years, is a union member and completed college courses to become certified. The cleaning job, which she took up because she couldn't make ends meet, pays right at the federally mandated minimum: $5.15 an hour. For the 46-year-old single mother with a bright smile and big dimples, life has never been easy. But, as she will tell you, it certainly has been easier. When she began minimum-wage work more than two decades ago, Ms. Williams says, she had little difficulty paying her bills. Small indulgences for her and her three children--a burger and fries on a Saturday afternoon, a new blouse, the occasional name-brand sneakers--weren't such a stretch. Most of all, Ms. Williams wasn't nearly so stressed over money. Sometimes, she and her best friend, Ruby Moore, sit in Ms. Williams's back yard and, as trains thunder by, they talk about how they just can't get ahead. Ms. Moore, 51, has earned around the minimum wage for years, first by working in the kitchen of a drug-treatment center, and now by cooking for recovering addicts of a different sort--the gamblers who've surfaced along with the glittering casino boats on the Red River. ``It's much harder than it used to be,'' she says. ``You've got to skip this bill in order to pay that bill.'' ``You think you're moving forward,'' adds Ms. Williams, ``but you're just moving backwards.'' There's little wonder why. As a long-time low-wage worker, Ms. Williams has felt the sting of one of the most profound shifts in American economic policy during the past 20 years: a mounting disdain for the minimum wage. Established during the New Deal, the minimum wage was once viewed by Democrats and Republicans alike as an instrument of economic justice-- an effort to ``end starvation wages,'' as President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself put it. Now, though, it is seen by much of official Washington as an economic impediment, an undue burden on a marketplace better left unfettered. Where the onus was once on the business owner to pay ``a decent wage,'' it's now more on the worker to demonstrate that he or she deserves one. This sea change began when Ronald Reagan swept into office. From 1950 through 1982, the minimum wage was allowed to fall below 45% of the average hourly wage in the U.S. in only four separate years. Since 1982, the minimum wage has never reached 45%, and it currently stands at 36%, of that benchmark. Even using a conservative measure of inflation, the minimum wage throughout the '60s and '70s was consistently worth more than $5.50 an hour--and frequently more than $6--in today's terms. After 1980, its value plummeted, sinking to less than $4.50 as President Reagan left office. Two subsequent increases have nudged it back up to its present $5.15. While the robust job market of the '90s thinned the ranks of minimum-wage workers--only about 1% of hourly employees earn exactly $5.15 an hour now, down from more than 9% in 1980--plenty of people still hover right around the pay floor. Legislation introduced in Congress last February would elevate the minimum wage to $6.65 an hour by 2003. More than 11 million workers, or about 15% of the hourly labor force, now earn from $5.15 to $6.64. President Bush has signaled that he could accept a moderate increase in the minimum wage--but only if states are allowed to opt out. The Senate, where the Democrats recently gained control, is expected to take up the matter in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, in communities across the country, low-wage work isn't a relic, but an unremitting reality. A just-published study by two economists--William Carrington, formerly of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Reserve's Bruce Fallick--gives a name to this phenomenon: the ``minimum-wage career.'' They tracked some 3,500 people for 10 years after they had left school and found that more than 8% spent at least half of that time in jobs paying at or near the minimum wage. In Ms. Williams's case, practically everyone she knows has been mired in such occupations their whole working lives. For them, it's as if the two longest peacetime economic expansions in the nation's history--one under President Reagan, the other under President Clinton--never happened at all. Ms. Williams earned $10,067 in wages last year. She also received a $2,353 federal tax credit targeted to the working poor. Because her children are all grown and gone, the size of the credit hinges on Ms. Williams's seven-year-old grandson, Kimdrick, staying with her for more than half the year. Caring for Kimdrick is a survival strategy she worked out with her eldest daughter; if she weren't caring for a child, Ms. Williams would have been eligible for a tax credit of only $27--a point at which, she says, she'd likely be on the streets. The daughter claims her other two children for tax purposes. Through the 1980s, Ms. Williams's wages were so low that she received welfare payments--at times as much as $217 a month--to supplement her income. But she ceased collecting these handouts 12 years ago, partly, she says, because it was a hassle to reapply every few months and partly because of the indignity. ``I just wanted welfare to be a stepping stone,'' she says. ``It made me feel terrible.'' Last summer, Ms. Williams also stopped reapplying for food stamps, which in the past had been worth up to $324 a month, depending on how many of her children were living with her and other factors. The local housing authority still picks up nearly two-thirds of her monthly $525 in rent, and she receives free medical care for her high blood pressure at an indigent clinic. Inside her small but fastidiously kept house--decorated mostly with bric-a-brac from Good Will and the Dollar Store and pictures cut out of magazines hung on the walls--Ms. Williams ticked off the expenses that she was juggling at the moment. Besides the gas bill, a notice recently arrived reminding her that she was late in paying $142.14 to the electric company. She owed $55.26 to the phone company, $23.47 on the student loan she took out years ago for her nursing classes, and $39.95 for her burglar alarm--a must, she says, in her crime-infested neighborhood. Violence touched her just last year. Ms. Williams's boyfriend snapped and, according to police records, came at two of her kids with a knife. Ms. Williams shot him with her .25-caliber pistol. He staggered into traffic and was run over and died. The authorities ruled the shooting ``justifiable,'' and Ms. Williams was never charged. The incident, she says, left a void in her heart. It also left one in her pocketbook. The boyfriend used to chip in on the bills, and his absence has been the main reason that Ms. Williams has had to find a second job--even in Shreveport, where it's relatively cheap to live. Her budget offers no cushion. The bill from Reliant Energy, swollen in part by unusually cold weather last winter, sent Ms. Williams tearing into her scant savings. She had somehow managed to put away a few dollars in the hopes of eventually moving someplace quieter, out in the country. But in a single stroke, the check to Reliant wiped out most of her nest egg. ``It's devastating,'' she said, ``just devastating.'' A little later, Ms. Williams moved along Hollywood Avenue, a run-down commercial strip near her house, where sin and salvation compete head-on; for every liquor store and bail bondsman, a Baptist church beckons. ``Why is it so hard to get a pay increase?'' she asked. ``If I made $7 an hour, I'd think I was doing good.'' Over on Illinois Avenue, Ms. Williams gazed at the simple wooden house she grew up in. She remembered sitting out on the front porch with her daddy, watching him sell watermelons--three for $1--in the 1950s. ``They were good and sweet,'' she said. It was a different world back then. One by one, President Eisenhower's top advisers paraded into the Cabinet Room of the White House and took their places around the big mahogany table. The discussion on this morning, Dec. 10, 1954, quickly turned to the workaday business of running the country: an initiative to add 70,000 units of public housing, the Buy American Act, the need for preventive medical care. Yet one subject, above all, seemed to stir the participants' passion: raising the minimum wage. Mr. Eisenhower--the first Republican to occupy the White House since the minimum wage was enacted--had floated the idea of increasing it from 75 cents an hour early in the year. Now, with the economy humming along, it appeared the perfect time to put the plan in motion. Even the president's economic adviser, the cautious Arthur Burns, agreed that the only question left to decide was what ``the optimum figure'' for the new wage would be. Handwritten notes from the cabinet meeting, stored at the Eisenhower Library, suggest that the president listened intently to the numbers being bandied about. George Humphrey, the treasury secretary, declared that going to $1 an hour ``would be too much'' and could undermine smooth relations with the business community. All eyes then fell on Labor Secretary Jim Mitchell, a plain-spoken man who had once been in charge of employee relations at Bloomingdale's. One dollar, he countered, ``has great appeal.'' The vice president, Richard Nixon, added that it would be ``unfortunate'' if the administration recommended less than $1 because that would only enhance the odds that Democrats in Congress would ``raise the ante.'' Finally, Mr. Eisenhower spoke up. ``We just have to seek that place where both sides will curse us,'' he said. ``Then we'll be right.'' The law establishing the federal minimum wage, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, had called for just such a balancing act. It stipulated that workers be paid at least enough to maintain a ``minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general well-being.'' At the same time, though, it sought to do this ``without substantially curtailing employment.'' Mr. Eisenhower ultimately proposed an increase to 90 cents--and the cursing came on cue. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that a 90-cent minimum would be ``self- defeating'' because many mom-and-pop businesses would have to shut their doors and lay people off, hurting the very low- skilled workers who were supposed to benefit. George Meany, the president of the American Federation of Labor, denounced the administration's plan as ``grossly inadequate'' to lift up the poor and pushed for $1.25 an hour. In many ways, the economic debate hasn't changed much over the years. Opponents have long claimed that imposing a higher minimum wage kills jobs. ``The direct unemployment,'' wrote Prof. George Stigler in a landmark article in the June 1946 American Economic Review, ``is substantial and certain.'' Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told a congressional hearing that he would abolish the minimum wage if he could. ``I'm not in favor of cutting anybody's earnings or preventing them from rising,'' he said, ``but I am against them losing their jobs because of artificial government intervention, which is essentially what the minimum wage is.'' Yet other analysts have disagreed, touting the minimum wage as an effective means for helping working people to escape poverty. Those in this camp contend that as long as it isn't excessive, an increase in the minimum wage will destroy few, if any, jobs. Their rationale: As businesses raise their wages, they're apt to suffer less turnover and will often find that their employees are more diligent, leading to a jump in output that more than makes up for the extra cost to the payroll. As the Eisenhower plan moved to Capitol Hill, the action unfolded in a manner typical of the era. Democrats, by and large, wanted a higher minimum wage than did their GOP counterparts. But the divide wasn't purely partisan. Southern Democrats railed against a raise, while ``liberal Republicans'' favored one. In July 1955, a bill emerged from Congress to increase the minimum wage to $1. A couple of weeks later, Mr. Eisenhower signed the legislation into law. ``I think `fairness' is a good word'' to express what the president hoped to achieve, says Maxwell Rabb, who was Mr. Eisenhower's cabinet secretary. ``He did not want a divided nation,'' and lifting wages for those at the bottom was part of that larger agenda. The minimum wage went up again during each of the next two administrations--those of presidents Kennedy and Johnson--and coverage also was extended to more than 12 million workers, including retail and restaurant employees and farm hands, who previously had been exempt. By 1968, as Richard Nixon was elected president, the value of the minimum wage had hit its apex: $6.82 an hour in today's terms. Many lawmakers fixed their sights on the average wage in the U.S., taking care to keep the minimum at about half that amount. ``People feel poor when their income is less than 50% of the average,'' explained Rep. Al Quie of Minnesota, who served for 11 terms beginning in 1958 and would go on to become ranking Republican on the House Labor Committee. Mr. Quie and other key players from the minimum-wage wars of yesteryear--including members of both parties--say their advocacy for increases was propelled, in large part, by a fundamental belief: People who get up and go to work each day deserve to make enough money to cover their essential needs. Employers that aren't productive enough to provide such a basic level of compensation--``chiselers,'' some detractors have called them--don't belong in an affluent society. This way of thinking, recalls Eugene Mittelman, who served as labor counsel for GOP Sen. Jacob Javits of New York from the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, transcended all the conflicting studies about how the minimum wage affected unemployment, inflation and poverty. ``It was more of a general feeling that if people worked, they ought to make a living wage,'' he says. ``This wasn't economically driven. It was morally driven.'' The Shreveport that Pat Williams was born into in the spring of 1955 was an oil-and-gas boomtown, where folks swayed to the music of Elvis Presley, the young star of the ``Louisiana Hayride,'' a radio show aired right from the city's own Municipal Auditorium. The Williams household didn't partake in the good times, however. The family never had much money, and Pat was raised under the loving but strict hand of a Jehovah's Witness. She was, she says, ``a good kid'' until, at age 13, she made a startling discovery: The couple she thought were her parents--the domestic and retired carpenter she had known her whole life as ``Mommy and Daddy''--were actually her aunt and uncle. Pat's real mother had abandoned her as a baby. The revelation ``totally messed me up,'' she says. ``I went from getting A's and B's in school to D's and F's, when I showed up at all.'' By 19, Ms. Williams was a 10th-grade dropout with three children, no husband and no job. Then, one day in 1979, she says, ``something inside me clicked.'' Bored with just lounging around, living off welfare, and overwhelmed by a sense that ``I wanted my children to have more than I did,'' Ms. Williams set out to find work. She landed a job at the Hollywood Tourist Courts, a rooms- by-the-hour motel where she cleaned up and checked in patrons, some of them acquaintances of hers apparently sneaking off for illicit trysts. She received only minimum wage--then $2.90 an hour--but ``it felt good,'' she says, to be bringing in her own money. ``I was proud.'' What's more, Ms. Williams found that even on her salary-- which was equivalent to $6.34 an hour in today's dollars--she was able to meet her routine expenses without much of a strain. She usually had enough money left on the weekends to take her brood to Mister Swiss, a hamburger joint next to the motel, where they'd grab lunch and pop the leftover change into the jukebox. Despite being poor, says Ms. Williams, ``those days were more carefree.'' Over the next two years, the minimum wage rose to $3.35 an hour, or $6.08 in today's terms, following a four-step increase that had been passed in 1977. Little did Ms. Williams know that this would mark the last time the minimum wage would be raised for nearly a decade, undoing a practice that had been carried out by seven U.S. presidents--and leaving her further and further behind. In the summer of 1969, an analysis written by a former commissioner of labor statistics named Ewan Clague crossed President Nixon's desk. It indicated that the minimum wage was exacerbating one of the most vexing problems confronting the nation at the time: a skyrocketing youth unemployment rate. A business owner subject to the minimum wage, Mr. Clague wrote, ``cannot afford to put up with a mediocre job performance by inexperienced youngsters.'' Mr. Nixon's answer--a proposal whose development can be traced through numerous documents culled from the National Archives--was to allow employers to pay 16- and 17-year-olds a ``youth subminimum,'' an amount even lower than the minimum wage. The logic was simple: High-school dropouts could then find entry-level positions much more easily, acquiring the skills and work habits they'd need to eventually secure more- rewarding jobs. Yet the plan faced many critics, who feared that business owners would engage in, as Sen. Javits put it, the ``wholesale replacement'' of adult workers with younger, cheaper employees. A bill to raise the minimum wage finally passed the Democratic-controlled Congress in August 1973. However, it didn't include a youth subminimum, and it sought to ramp up the wage on a faster timetable than many Republicans thought prudent. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union launched a campaign urging Mr. Nixon to sign the bill; the corset and brassiere assemblers from Local 32 in New York alone mailed him more than 1,500 postcards and letters. Unimpressed, Mr. Nixon vetoed the legislation. Mr. Meany, the AFL-CIO chief, slammed the president's decision as a ``cruel blow'' to low-wage workers, while Harrison Williams of New Jersey, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, accused Mr. Nixon of exhibiting ``a callous disregard'' for the working poor. But in hindsight, what's most striking about the standoff--so bitter and protracted that the legislative history would one day fill a bound volume more than two inches thick--is that few voices ever assailed the minimum wage itself. ``There can be no doubt about the need for a higher minimum wage,'' Mr. Nixon said in his veto message. ``Both fairness and decency require that we act. . . .'' In the spring of 1974, Congress passed a new minimum-wage bill, which still lacked a youth subminimum. But this time, on April 8, Mr. Nixon signed it, a deed that would get a little lost on the next morning's front page given other news out of Atlanta: Hank Aaron had just smashed his record- setting 715th major-league home run. Few in the president's party protested the raise, which took the minimum wage to $2.30 an hour ($6.25 in 2001 terms) from $1.60 over three years. That made up for much of the inflation that had eaten away at it since the last increase in '68. The president himself proclaimed that, while Congress ``did not go as far as I wished in protecting . . . work opportunities for youth,'' the fight had dragged on long enough. Improving the wages of workers whose earnings have ``remained static for six years,'' he said, ``is now a matter of justice that can no longer be fairly delayed.'' It wouldn't take much of a cynic to dismiss President Nixon's comments as politically motivated, especially given that he signed the bill as the Watergate scandal neared its climax. Surely, he no longer had the muscle to sustain another veto. But several Nixon advisers insist that to read it this way would be mistaken. ``This wasn't a political sop to anybody,'' says Ken Cole, then Mr. Nixon's point man on domestic-policy issues. ``He believed in what he was doing.'' Whenever Labor Department supervisor Willis Nordlund needed some esoteric piece of information on the minimum wage, he knew right where to turn: the big bank of file cabinets inside room C-3319 at the department's cavernous Washington headquarters--a depository so chockfull, he says, it contained handwritten charts going back to the days of the New Deal. And so, Mr. Nordlund recalls, it was more than a little shocking when one morning, sometime in the late 1980s, he walked into the third-floor file room, only to find all the material thrown out by another supervisor who wanted the space. For someone who had taken to heart Franklin Roosevelt's assessment that, next to Social Security, the Fair Labor Standards Act ranked as ``the most far-reaching, far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted,'' it was not an easy period. Mr. Nordlund's budget for research into the minimum wage had been slashed through the Reagan years. Now, the cleaning out of the files, he says, was ``the final kick in the gut''--to him and, symbolically at least, to the minimum wage itself. ``This was an administration,'' he says, ``that just wanted the minimum wage to go away.'' Indeed, it did. A mere six years after Richard Nixon had talked about raising it as ``a matter of justice'' and three years after Jimmy Carter had raised it again, Ronald Reagan blasted the minimum wage as the cause of ``more misery and unemployment than anything since the Great Depression.'' Seen this way, raising the minimum wage wasn't moral; it was downright ``immoral,'' says economist Milton Friedman, the intellectual godfather of the Reagan revolution. ``If you're willing to work for $1.25 an hour, and I'm willing to pay you $1.25 an hour because that's what you're worth, are you better off being unemployed'' because the government insists on a higher wage? This wasn't a wholly new line of reasoning, to be sure. But after President Reagan was elected, ``the tone changed,'' says Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a leading champion of a higher minimum wage. ``It was much more ideological.'' For the first time ever, a president and his top aides set out to see the minimum wage wither. ``If we would have had our druthers,'' acknowledges Murray Weidenbaum, the chairman of Mr. Reagan's first Council of Economic Advisers, ``we would have eliminated it.'' However, because that would have been such ``a painful political process,'' Mr. Weidenbaum says that he and other officials were content to let inflation turn the minimum wage into ``an effective dead letter.'' The administration's antipathy was fueled by scholarship similar to that which Mr. Nixon had zeroed in on earlier: The minimum wage, these studies found, was a barrier to employment for low-skilled workers, especially African- American teens. Much of this research was the product of a ``neoclassical'' movement in economics that had been gaining steam in academic circles since the 1960s, thanks in no small part to the influence of University of Chicago professors, including Mr. Friedman and George Stigler. The school emphasized the virtues of economic efficiency. The concept that every worker is entitled to a ``living wage,'' regardless of his or her skills, ``was no longer part of the discussion,'' says Robert Prasch, who teaches the history of economic thought at Middlebury College. At one point, Mr. Reagan proposed his own version of a youth subminimum. But unlike President Nixon, whose promotion of a lesser pay scale for teenagers had been tempered by a sense that the minimum wage shouldn't be allowed to erode too much in general, Mr. Reagan saw almost any meddling in the marketplace as anathema. The president ``believed that the government should not have the right to step in and bar employment opportunities for anyone,'' says John Cogan, who served as an assistant secretary in the Reagan Labor Department. ``The moral issue was very clear in his mind.'' It was for others as well. Many of the Republicans who rode on Mr. Reagan's coattails in 1980 ``thought just like he did'' on the minimum wage, says John Motley, who was then a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business, a group representing small enterprise. In fact, he says, about two dozen lawmakers elected to Congress that year--far more than ever before--were NFIB members. On Capitol Hill, entrepreneurs were treated increasingly as ``heroic figures,'' Mr. Motley says. ``The government needed to help them, not saddle them with mandates and regulations.'' As the NFIB and other minimum-wage adversaries such as the National Restaurant Association ascended, the policy's greatest guardian fell on hard times. Following President Reagan's firing of striking air-traffic controllers in 1981, labor unions went on the defensive and were unable to fight as tenaciously as they had in the past for a higher minimum wage. All the while, the portion of the work force that's unionized declined steadily, edging under 20% in 1984. When Mr. Reagan took office in 1981, the minimum wage was at $3.35 an hour. When he left eight years later, it was still at $3.35. In real terms, its value had sunk almost 27%, to $4.46 in today's dollars. Back in Shreveport, Pat Williams grappled with the consequences. After a couple of years at the Hollywood Courts, she left the motel for a better job, cooking soul food at a restaurant called the Riverboat Inn for the comparatively lofty pay of $5.75 an hour. But the place shut down in the mid-1980s, and Ms. Williams wound up as a nursing assistant at Harmony House, back on the minimum wage. As her purchasing power dwindled, Ms. Williams scrimped. Where her family once enjoyed a varied diet, including all sorts of meat, by the late '80s they ate strictly chicken--so much of it that her kids would break out in song around the dinner table: Chicken fly high Chicken fly low Chicken fly Mamma's way Don't fly no mo' When the chicken money ran out, the children recall, they subsisted on beans and rice. The worst, though, was the holidays. Ms. Williams and the kids--Theresa, Youlonda and Darrell--all still vividly remember the Christmas that they couldn't afford a single gift. Youlonda says that she and her siblings tried to comfort their mom, telling her it was all right, that they understood. But Ms. Williams just sat on her bed and cried. Eventually, she came out of her room and turned on the stereo. She doesn't remember exactly what she played that December afternoon, but she's sure it was her favorite music: the blues. ``If you really listen to the blues,'' she says, ``you find out it's nothing but the truth.'' A half dozen Harmony House workers sat on Ms. Williams's threadbare couches one evening last April, sipping beers and peering through a cigarette haze, as union organizer Zack Nauth offered up something rare in their lives: a word of hope. Louisiana nursing homes, which had been complaining that deficient Medicaid reimbursements were the main culprit for their workers' low pay, were slated to receive a $60 million infusion from the state. Mr. Nauth, of the Service Employees International Union, told the women that they needed to speak up and make sure they got their fair share. The nursing homes, Mr. Nauth said, would ``just as soon put it all into their own bank accounts.'' The women were skeptical that any of it would come their way, however, and spent most of the night venting. One worker, Shirley Vance, was particularly testy and questioned why they even have a union at Harmony House. ``I don't see no results,'' she said, griping about her biweekly dues of $6.50. But Ms. Williams and her friend, Annie Freeman, maintained that the union has been a real plus. Workers had fewer rights and virtually no benefits, they said, before the SEIU got there. ``We've had to fight for what we have,'' said Ms. Williams. Of the six women at the meeting, all were making less than $6 an hour, including one who has been at Harmony House for 18 years. ``We can't survive on what they pay us,'' said Ms. Freeman, a nursing assistant who, after more than a decade at the home, earns $5.60 an hour. ``We sure can't,'' echoed Ms. Vance. ``It's pitiful.'' Before the meeting broke up, the conversation turned to the minimum wage. Mr. Nauth told the group that he's heard rumblings that Congress may vote on an increase this year. Ms. Williams said she gets ``all excited'' at the prospect but knows better than to count on it. The last time lawmakers deliberated on such legislation, just last year, it died. Since Ronald Reagan left office, the minimum wage has been raised twice: with great reluctance by President Bush in 1989 and by President Clinton in 1996. Both followed drawn-out battles defined by the kind of partisan sniping that has come with the changed complexion of Congress. Many of the seats once held by Southern Democrats have been seized by Republicans, and the number of GOP moderates who used to support the minimum wage has shriveled in the conservative tide. One new twist, added to the debate in recent rounds, is that tax breaks for small businesses are now routinely linked to any minimum-wage bill. The only way low-wage workers get help is if company owners do, too. In earlier years, ``that would have been laughed out of the room by both sides,'' says Ken Young, a long-time AFL-CIO official. No one thought about business breaks ``when you were talking about the people at the very bottom end of the economic ladder.'' With the minimum wage worth less today than it was all through the '60s and ' 70s, a backlash has developed around the nation. Ten states and the District of Columbia now have their own minimum wages that are higher than the federal government's. And in a host of cities, so-called living-wage campaigns have been undertaken to raise workers' pay to anywhere from around $8.00 an hour--what it takes for someone to support a family of four above the poverty line--to more than $10. The immediate aim of the Harmony House workers, though, was far more modest: a $1-an-hour increase. Mr. Nauth asked the women to devise a slogan that they could use to rally the public to their cause. Ms. Freeman's entry: ``Take Care of the People Who Take Care of Yours.'' Several of the women said they think from time to time about finding another job. The Shreveport economy has been strong lately, and most ``anybody that's got some get-up-and- go'' should be able to find work that pays satisfactorily, says Mayor Keith Hightower. The median pay for telemarketers in the area is $8.50 an hour. Housekeepers at the casinos earn up to $7. But for someone like Ms. Williams, who burns up so much energy just trying to make it day to day, job hunting seems hugely daunting. Besides, she and the others say that, save for their wages, they feel good about what they do. The nursing home residents ``are like family,'' says Ms. Williams, who keeps photographs of her patients who've passed on. In the mid-'90s, Ms. Williams left Harmony House for a hospital job that paid a bit better, but she came back a couple of years later because she didn't like the atmosphere at the new place nearly as much. Over at Harmony House, a low-slung edifice that's antiseptic-clean inside, officials say they'd love to pay their workers more, but the Medicaid situation has made it impossible. ``We've really been in a pinch,'' says James Shelton, a supervisor at Central Management Co., a Winnfield, La.-based firm whose principals own and operate Harmony House along with other nursing homes around the state. Nevertheless, the company's president saw his own pay go up 44% in 1999. According to the latest available records from the state health department, Teddy Price's salary soared to $402,943 that year from $279,282 in 1998. A spokeswoman says the increase reflects Mr. Price's heightened responsibilities during the past few years as Central Management has added five new facilities to its portfolio. Less than a week after The Wall Street Journal asked Central Management about its workers' wages, Harmony House announced that ``because of market conditions,'' it was raising the pay of its certified nursing assistants. Housekeepers, laundry workers and kitchen personnel got no increase. Ms. Williams says she's ``grateful.'' She now makes $6.35 an hour--pay that's about equal in value to that of her first minimum-wage job, 22 years ago. The Faces of Low-Wage Work Name: Gussie Cannedy. Age: 76. Home: Philadelphia. Occupation: Answers phones at the American Red Cross. Hourly wage: $5.15. Ms. Cannedy, a widow who retired as a clothing-factory supervisor in 1985, works at the Red Cross to supplement her $715 in monthly Social Security income. Yet it isn't really enough. ``If it weren't for my children sending money every so often,'' she says, ``I couldn't get over the hump.''

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent that both sides yield back the time and the Senator be permitted to make a point of order and each side have 2 minutes to explain the point of order and 2 minutes to respond to that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY. We yield back our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have a series of votes coming up. We anticipate eight votes. We are trying to move the process along.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Allard isn't going to use his time. I would be glad to yield back at this time.