Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I had the opportunity to read the national intelligence report on Monday. There has been both an intelligence report and a declassified report. Even in the declassified report, would the Senator say, in his evaluation of the best of the intelligence community that has been reviewing this situation that every aspect of that intelligence report is basically in support of the conclusions the Senator has outlined here? This is not something just the Senators from New York or Massachusetts are making up. This is a conclusion which has been made by the intelligence agencies about what the nature of the battle is in Baghdad today.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Madam President, to pick up where the good Senator from New York stopped, we had yesterday at Saint Francis Xavier in Hyannis, MA--I was unable to attend because I was here in the Senate--the funeral of a young serviceman who was lost. At the end of last week, a young serviceman named Callahan from Woburn, MA--his fourth time in Iraq, a father of four--was lost. Woburn, MA, is a very interesting blue-collar community. They had the highest percentage of casualties in the Vietnam war of any community in my State. They had high school class after high school class that joined the Marines and suffered devastating casualties in Vietnam. It is also a storybook community on civic action--water contamination in that community resulted in the deaths of a number of children there. But the community is made up of extraordinary men and women and families. They are weathering through this extreme, extraordinary tragedy. Sixty-four brave soldiers from Massachusetts have been lost, killed, and this is the overriding, overarching issue in question: What can we do after 4 years where our service men and women have done everything we have asked them to do? They have served in Iraq longer than it took to end World War II, to sweep through Africa, to cross Western Europe, cross through the Pacific, and they are still out there. Many of us believe, as we mentioned a few moments ago, that the solution lies not in the increasing surge but in a political resolution and determination and decisions made by the Iraqis for their own future. It is, after all, their country. Let me talk for a few minutes about the other costs of this war, the $200 billion which is in the President's budget for the war in Iraq and what the implications of that will be, so that Americans can understand more completely the costs. It comes from children's health, as the President's budget underfunds the CHIP program by $8 billion. That program has been extremely successful in providing health care to low-income children. Will the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yet there are still more than 8 million children in America with no health coverage, and there is a health care crisis for our Nation's children. But what does the President propose to do about it? His budget will make the crisis even worse by cutting 400,000 children from the Children's Health Insurance Program. It comes from our seniors and our disabled citizens. The President's budget cuts $66 billion from Medicare, which is a lifeline to millions of retirees and disabled Americans. If the President has his way, more than 700,000 people in Massachusetts who rely on Medicare could see the quality of their care go down. It comes from those battling mental illnesses. Each year, 25 percent of Americans suffer from some sort of mental illness. We owe it to them and their families to do all we can to ensure they are able to lead full and productive lives. Yet the President's budget cuts mental health assistance by $159 million. It comes from Hurricane Katrina victims. Despite massive ongoing needs on the gulf coast, the President's budget offers no additional assistance to help people rebuild their lives. It comes from the Nation's defense against epidemics, such as the flu, as the President proposes to slash funding for the Centers for Disease Control by $165 million. It comes from Medicaid, our health care lifeline for the poor, which the President intends to cut by $50 billion over the next 10 years. In Massachusetts, 880,000 citizens depend on Medicaid, and this budget places them at risk. It comes from our children's education. The President's budget underfunds the No Child Left Behind reforms by almost $15 billion. In my State of Massachusetts, these cuts would leave behind more than 51,000 children. Nationwide, we have 3.5 million children who are not participating in the program whatsoever. Yet they will have a requirement to meet sufficiency in the year 2012. It comes from our youngest children. By cutting $107 million from the Head Start Program, the President fails to give the youngest children a strong start in life. This is a program which is tried, tested, and true. It comes from our students with special needs. When we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we made a promise to disabled children and their families that they were to receive the education they deserve. President Bush's budget breaks that promise by cutting funding to IDEA by $290 million. We made the commitment we were going to provide 40 percent of all the funding. We are now at about 18 percent of funding, and we are reducing that. It is shifting the burden onto the families and the local communities. It comes from school safety. Our children ought to be able to go to school without fearing violence, but this budget cuts funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. With all the challenges of schools and violence in schools, it cuts back the funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. It comes at the expense of our teachers. Over the next decade, this Nation will need to hire 2 million more teachers, but this budget cuts funding for teacher quality grants. It comes at the expense of students. At a time when college costs are skyrocketing, the President's budget completely eliminates the Perkins Loan Program, which over 500,000 students depend on to help them afford a college education. We know that a college degree is a ticket to a bright and better future, but this budget closes the college door instead of opening it wider. There are already 400,000 young people who are qualified to get into our fine community colleges, public colleges, and private colleges and don't do so because of a lack of funding. It comes from our workers who are looking for good jobs to support their families because the President's budget slashes $1 billion from programs that train Americans for jobs. Madam President, listen to this: In Massachusetts alone, there are 25,000 people waiting to be enrolled in job training programs. In Boston, there are 25 applicants for each job training slot. There are 78,000 jobs that are out there today that are looking for trained people, 25 people for every training slot, 275,000 people who are unemployed. What is wrong with this picture? We are cutting back on the training opportunities for those individuals to be able to pay more in taxes and provide more hopeful futures for their children. This budget can find $200 billion more for the war in Iraq but not a dime for people at home trying to better their lives. They come from families who need help putting food on the table. The President wants to cut the Food Stamp Program by $600 million, leaving nearly 300,000 families wondering where they are going to find the next meal for themselves and their children. I have had the chance to visit our absolutely spectacular food bank in Boston, and they talk about the increased numbers that they already have. This is going to even put more pressure on those food banks and more pressure on those families. It comes from the poor struggling against the bitter cold, as the budget cuts 17 percent of the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low- income families afford to heat their homes. In my State, if you use home heating oil you need to fill your tank generally three times a winter--three times a winter. Families are down now where they are only able to fill--the needy who qualify for this-- less than half a tank for the whole winter. We know what is happening. People make the choices between the prescription drugs they need, the food they need, and the heat they need for their homes. We are cutting that program by 17 percent. Perhaps most tragically of all, the money for the war in Iraq comes from our veterans themselves. Nearly half the troops returning from Iraq will require health care services to cope with the physical or mental toll of the war. Yet the President's budget underfunds veterans' health. It provides only half the increase in funding required for the VA to keep pace with the needs of our veterans. In Massachusetts alone, there are 453,000 veterans who have served our country when they were called to duty, and we have a moral obligation to do all we can for them. This is the cost of this war. This is all for a war that never should have happened, for a war that should be brought to an end. Yet this administration is allowing it to go on and on, with mistake after mistake after mistake. This terrible war is having an effect not only on our troops, who are paying the highest price, but on our children, our elderly, our schools, our workers, and the poor here at home. While the President forges ahead with a surge in Iraq, the American people need a surge here at home. Americans see the cost of health care and the cost of college going up. What about a surge in our health and education policies to meet those needs? Americans here at home worry about their economic security, about their jobs and stagnant wages, how they can support themselves on their wages. How about a surge here at home to help meet their needs? Last week, we met with our Nation's mayors. They described the problem of school dropouts, how these young people are turning to crime in our communities, the proliferation of murders and youth homicides and suicides. Where is the surge to address that problem? No wonder the American people are growing angrier and angrier as the war wages on. They expect Congress to be an effective restraint on the President and his abuse of the War Powers Act. Opposition to the escalation is clear already. How much clearer does it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally respond to the voice of the American people? When will this war be brought to an end? An escalation now would be an immense mistake, compounding the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. Public support for the war does not exist. There is no support for this escalation. We have surged our forces four times in the past, and each time the situation hasn't changed. The President cannot continue to unilaterally impose his failing policy on Americans who have already rejected it. Congress has the responsibility to stop the President from sending more of our sons and daughters to die in this civil war. The legislation on which the Democrats seek a vote is our first effort to meet that responsibility. It is our chance to go on record in opposition to the surge. It is a clarion call for change.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Last week, the new National Intelligence Estimate confirmed the nightmare scenario unfolding for our troops in Iraq. The country is sliding deeper into an abyss of civil war, with our brave men and women caught in the middle of it. The prospects for halting the escalating sectarian violence is bleak, with greater chaos and anarchy looming and many additional U.S. casualties inevitable. It is abundantly clear that what we need is not a troop surge but a diplomatic surge, working with other countries in the region. Sending more troops into the Iraq civil war is not the solution to Iraq's political problems. Not only does President Bush fail to see that reality, but he is also going out of his way to deny and defy it. Congress needs to express its opposition to this strategy. If the President refuses to change course, we must act to change it ourselves to protect our troops and end this misguided war. The war today is not the war Congress authorized 4 years ago. It is now a civil war. The war today is not about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or alleged relationship with al-Qaeda, it is Iraqi against Iraqi. Iraq is at war with itself, and American soldiers are caught in the middle. Madam President, it is time for the Members of this body to stand up and take a position on the issue of the surge. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair remind me when there is a minute remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, last evening the Republicans said no to an honest debate about what is best for our troops in Iraq, our national security, and for the American people. Our men and women in uniform have done everything that we have asked them to do. They have served with dignity, honor, and valor. They have served in Iraq longer than American forces fought in World War II. It has been said by Republicans and Democrats: This doesn't cry for a military solution, it cries for a political solution and resolution. Still we have a President who is relying on sending an additional 20,000 to 38,000 troops more to what is effectively a civil war. The cost in blood and treasure has been staggering. More than 3,000 Americans have been killed so far, including 64 from Massachusetts; more than 23,000 have been wounded. In my home community, SGT Alexander Fuller of Centerville, MA, was buried last week; Keith Callahan of Woburn, MA--Woburn, MA, that had a higher percentage of soldiers killed in Vietnam than any other community in our State. High school class after high school class after high school class joined the U.S. Marines. They were in the thick of the fighting with devastating losses. Keith Callahan, in his fourth trip to Iraq, was killed just 10 days ago. The services in that community took place last week. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and millions have fled their homes. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the war already. Today the President is asking for hundreds of billions of dollars more. President Bush insists on his policy of escalation, while most of us in Congress are increasingly convinced that deescalation is the only realistic strategy. The American people do not support further escalation of this war. The legislation on which we seek an honest debate is intended to make a record of who is on the side of the American people and opposes sending tens of thousands more American troops into this civil war. Despite the clear result of the November election, our Republican colleagues are not prepared to face the truth on Iraq. They are determined to avoid a debate on the most important national security issue of our time. They are willing to allow tens of thousands of more young men and women to be dropped in the cauldron of a civil war. The cost in precious American lives is reason enough to end this mistaken and misguided war, but the cost at home came into full view yesterday as we received the President's budget. This President's budget devotes more than $200 billion to the war in Iraq. Where does the money come from? It comes from the Children's Health Insurance Program, as the President's budget underfunds the CHIP program by $8 billion. That program provides health care to low-income children. It has had bipartisan support in the Senate and the House of Representatives. It has made an extraordinary difference to the quality of health of millions of children. There are millions of children who are qualified for this program. But because the Federal Government doesn't provide the help to the States, those children are not going to get covered. Make no mistake about it. We are taking those resources that ought to be devoted to the CHIP program and sending them to Iraq. It comes from our children's education, the No Child Left Behind Act, because this budget underfunds the No Child Left Behind reforms by almost $15 billion. What are we saying? We are not going to get the well-trained teachers that this legislation requires. We are not going to have the adequacy of supplementary services to help those children in high school. We are not going to move toward smaller class sizes. We are not going to have an effective program to bring in parents. We are not going to have the examination of these children to find out what they need in terms of help in their classes. No, because we are shipping billions of dollars to Iraq. Twenty-three thousand children are in the streets of Philadelphia today, having dropped out of school; 22,000 children have dropped out of school in Cleveland, OH. It is happening all over the country. And what are we doing? Sending away billions and billions of dollars that ought to be there for prevention programs to stop those children from dropping out of school, to help those children get back into school so they will have useful and productive lives. They are the ones who are paying for these wars. As to seniors, our disabled citizens, the President cut $66 billion from the Medicaid Program which is a lifeline to millions of retirees and disabled children. I was there when President Johnson said: You work hard, you pay into the Medicare Program, pay into those programs, and we guarantee you that you are going to have the health care you need for the rest of your life. That is a commitment that we made. Now we are skimping on it. We didn't provide at that time a prescription drug program. We provided one eventually that served more for the drug industry and the HMOs than it did for the senior citizens. We are cutting back on health care for our seniors and the disabled. It comes from our workers who are looking for good jobs to support their families because the President's budget slashes $1 billion from programs that train Americans for jobs for the future. How many speeches will we hear about competitiveness and the problems we are facing in terms of the world economy, how we are going to have to redouble our efforts in order to be competitive, to have the new industries that will provide new jobs and new benefits and new opportunities for our citizens. Every Member of this body will be making that speech someplace in their State next week. We know that. What are we doing? In my State of Massachusetts, we have 275,000 people who are unemployed, and we have 78,000 job vacancies. The only thing that is lacking is training. We have 24 applications for every opening for training. People want the training to get the skills to participate and take care of their families. What does this President do? He cuts that program. That is part of the cost. People are asking back home--down in New Bedford and Fall River and Lowell and Lawrence and Holyoke and Springfield--who is going to stand up for us? It is not only the loss of their sons and daughters from those communities, but they see that it is gutting the lifelines to their communities, the children and the elderly, those who are the most vulnerable in our society. They are paying the price. Read the President's budget. Make no mistake about it. Who is paying the price? They are paying the price, the neediest people in our society. Then it comes from the poor who are struggling against the bitter cold. It cuts 17 percent of the funding for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program that helps low-income families heat their homes. Maybe it is warm in certain parts of this country, but it is cold as can be in many others. There are a lot of needy people in those cold areas where there is a completely inadequate fuel assistance program now. This administration has cut back on that program year after year after year, and this year is no different, a 17-percent reduction. Most of the elderly people, the needy people in my State, need to have their oil tanks, if they are using home heating oil, filled three times a year. This won't even let them get one tank of fuel assistance in their homes over the year. The poor are paying a fearsome price. They are seeing their funding diverted to these conflicts and the surge in Iraq. This is a war that never should have happened. It is a war that should be brought to an end. Yet the administration is allowing it to go on and on, mistake after mistake after mistake. This terrible war is having an effect not only on our troops, who are paying the highest price, but on our children, our elderly, our schools, our workers, and the poorest of the poor here at home. Make no mistake about it. While the President forges ahead with a surge in Iraq, the American people need a surge at home. Americans see the cost of their health care and the cost of college going up. What about a surge in our health and education policy to help meet their needs? What about a surge in those areas? I have introduced legislation which would require the President to get the authority he needs from Congress before moving forward with further escalation in Iraq. I intend to seek a vote on it, unless the President changes course. The debate is about what is best for our troops and our national security. Our forces have served with great valor. They have done everything they have been asked to do. Sending more of them into a civil war will not make success any more likely. We have a responsibility to vote on this issue before it is too late. The American people deserve to know where the Republicans stand and where the representatives in the Congress stand. I look forward to that debate and a vote at the earliest possible time. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this weekend marked the 10th anniversary of the Kennedy Center's Millennium Stage, a remarkable milestone for the center and its special commitment to reach out to the community and expand opportunities for citizens and visitors to enjoy exceptional performances. At 6 p.m. every evening, 7 days a week, the center presents a free concert with live performers on the Millennium Stage. Former chairman of the board Jim Johnson conceived the idea and guided the center through its early performances. Ever since, a remarkable series of talented musical artists and performing artists have been a part of this effort, from classical to rock and roll, from Sweet Honey in the Rock, KC and the Sunshine Band, to Norah Jones. More than 3 million people have enjoyed these free performances at the center, and countless more have enjoyed them on the Web casts. It is a wonderful tradition in the Nation's Capital, and I know that there will be many more brilliant performances in the years ahead. I urge my colleagues to let their constituents know about these exciting performance opportunities. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's Washington Post and an article from the Washington Post on February 2 about the Millennium Stage anniversary be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this momentous achievement that helps so many millions of Americans would not have been possible without the dedication and hard work of our staff. Of my own staff, I want to give a special thank you to Lauren McGarity for her strong commitment, her deep knowledge, and her hard work on this issue over many months. Lauren, you have really made a difference. I thank Portia Wu for her help and leadership and especially her able work over the past 2 weeks in handling the many amendments to this legislation. Thanks also to Missy Rohrbach for helping us manage the floor schedule and for all she does so well. Thanks, too, to Jonathan McCracken, Jeff Teitz, Dave Ryan, Esther Olavarria, and Laura Capps. As always, I am grateful also for the leadership of Michael Myers, who has been with me for many years as staff director of our HELP Committee. But above all my special thanks go to Holly Fechner, my chief labor counsel. This momentous vote is a tribute to her--to her skill, professionalism, and deep dedication to those who are the backbone of this country. Working men and women in America could not have a better friend and champion. Holly is a true leader, and we all owe her a great debt today. I commend Senator Enzi's staff, too. Katherine McGuire, Ilysse Schuman, Brian Hayes, Kyle Hicks, and Greg Dean. They are real professionals. It is a pleasure to work with them, and I thank them for their courtesies. Thanks, too, to Senator Baucus' able staff for making this victory possible--Russ Sullivan, Pat Heck, and Bill Dauster. And special thanks for the able leadership of Senator Reid's staff, especially Darrel Thompson and Bob Greenawalt. And, of course, Marty Paone, Lula Davis, Tim Mitchell, and Trish Engle as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I support the bipartisan compromise legislation on Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. It is a stunning repudiation of the President's misguided strategy in Iraq, and it will put the Senate squarely on record in opposition to the surge. It is a clarion call for change and a vote of no confidence in the President's failed policy. It was wrong for the President to take the country to war when we did, the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. It is wrong to compound that mistake now by sending tens of thousands of additional American troops into the middle of a civil war now taking place. The American people oppose this escalation. Many generals oppose it. A bipartisan majority of Congress opposes it as well. I especially commend our colleague, Senator Warner, for his extraordinary service to the Nation and making this compromise possible. Could our message to the White House be any louder or clearer? I intend, however, to press for binding action that will prevent the surge, unless the President changes course. If he doesn't, I will seek a vote at the first appropriate opportunity. It is wrong for the President to escalate this war and send more American soldiers into the cauldron of civil war. We are very hopeful that through the course of the afternoon we are going to be finally able to get a vote on the increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. This is the 9th day we have been on this particular legislation. We have had over $240 billion worth of increased tax preferences that have been suggested and recommended-- always on the increase on the minimum wage. This is not a very complex issue. We have not raised the minimum wage in over 10 years. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down and down, and even with the increase now to $7.25 an hour, it will only be restored to the purchasing power it had 10 years ago. This is an issue of fairness. It is about people who work and work hard. It is about men and women of dignity who want to do a good job and also want to provide for their children. So I am very hopeful we will have a chance this afternoon to move ahead and vote. We, on this side, have been prepared to vote on that increase from the first day. The House of Representatives only took 4 hours. The Democrats were joined by 80 Republicans to increase the minimum wage. But over here, we have had 9 days of debate on the minimum wage, with a host of different amendments and still, outside of cloture, we would have 96 amendments that would have been offered by our friends on that side. I saw yesterday that the President of the United States went to Wall Street and made a speech about how good everything was in terms of the American economy. I noticed that. I read through the speech. He was very robustly cheered by Wall Street during his recitation of some of the facts of what has been happening in the American economy. But although the economy has worked very well for Wall Street--I don't know of anybody who is doubting that--it is a different situation on Main Street. We have seen and heard, during the course of this debate, from many of our colleagues who related many of the stories they witnessed firsthand as they campaigned in their States and as they supported the initiatives that took place in some six States across the country. Rather than jobs that were going to lift you out of poverty, they are ending up being jobs that keep you in poverty. A minimum wage job was never meant to keep you in poverty. That is what it is doing today. To review what our situation is, looking at the growth of poverty in the United States, these are some of the figures that were not included in the President's speech yesterday. Between 2000 and 2005, 5.4 million more Americans are in poverty in this Bush economy. This is in the last 5 years, from 2000 to 2005. What is more distressing is the number of children who are now living in poverty. This is the other side of the economic coin. This is not Wall Street; this is what is happening in communities all across our country. These are census figures, as of August 2006. We have 1.3 million more children who are living in poverty. We have not seen a reduction in the number of children in poverty; we have seen an increase in the number of children in poverty. This has followed quite a series of economic policies that have brought us to where we are at the present time. We saw that between 1947 and 1973--to put this administration's economic policies in some perspective because I think it is useful to try to find out exactly what it is and to understand it better. Rather than taking one speech at a time, why don't we look at what has been happening to the economy over the period of recent years. This chart reflects statistics from 1947 to 1973, over a 25-year period, and these indicators are the five different quintiles of income for the American economy, with the lowest at 20 percent. What we are seeing is that all of the different economic groups rose and moved together. Actually, the ones that rose the most were those at the lowest part of the economic ladder. But what this chart is saying is that the economy of the United States of America was working for everyone during this 25-year period. Everyone. Everyone across the board was benefiting from the expanding economy. If we look at 1973 to 2000, we begin to see the growth of these great disparities. This is from the Economic Policy Institute, and these are figures from 1973 to 2000. It was interesting that in the President's speech he talked about where we were 25 years ago. Of course, 25 years ago is when President Reagan was President, and this is what we find, which is right in the middle of that period and when this major disparity started to grow. This would be, obviously, starting in 1980, and this is 1973 to 2000. The previous chart showed them all about even, with the lowest growing the fastest. Now we are seeing the flow line and the top moving along the fastest. And if we break this out even further, between 1973 and 2000, we find this growth disparity starting under the Republicans. It is 1980. The President made the reference to 25 years ago, and that is when the growth of this disparity started, and that is due to economic policies. Economic policies. You just can't get away from it. If we look from 2000 to 2004, this chart reflects what has happened. Take the line that goes right across, and we find out that low-income Americans are actually losing income and falling the fastest. This is a Census Bureau historical income table. These are the governmental figures. So this isn't a speech, these are governmental figures. It shows this extraordinary growth in these disparities, and the people who have suffered the most have been children and also those at the lower end of the economic ladder, who are the minimum wage workers. And that is what we are trying to change on the floor of the Senate, to give them a break and give them a raise to $7.25. We can see what has happened as a result of these economic policies of the recent past. These are the UNICEF child poverty figures, and we see across the industrial world that the United States has the highest child poverty rate, the highest child poverty rate of any industrial country in the world. So we have this idea on Wall Street that we can say everything is hunky-dory and yet be a nation where we have the highest child poverty rate in the world. And Lord only knows that this weekend probably every person in this Chamber will be making a speech about how children are our future and we have to invest in them, all of which is absolutely true, but we have been failing in our responsibility to look after what has been happening to the children in our country. One might say: Well, this is all very interesting, but what has the minimum wage got to do with any of this, Senator? It is interesting, but the increase in the minimum wage doesn't solve these issues. And I agree with the President that we have to do more in terms of education. We have to do more in terms of training and in health and in nutrition for these children. There is a great deal more we have to do for children. It all starts, obviously, in the home, but schools are next, and then communities. We all have to do a great deal more, but these are rather startling indictments. Look at where the poverty rate is in the United States. In States that have a high minimum wage, they have lower poverty rates. This is directly related to the subject matter here. We have talked generally about economic trends. We have talked about the growth in poverty and the growth in child poverty. So one might ask: What can we do about it? Well, one major step forward we can take is doing something about the minimum wage. Let's prove it. Look at this chart. These are States with higher minimum wages. They are the States that have voted for an increase in the minimum wage over the Federal minimum wage. Again, these are the Census Bureau's figures. The national poverty rate we see is the red line, and the States that have a higher minimum wage than the national average have less child poverty. Less child poverty. This chart reflects poverty rates generally, with the next chart reflecting lower child poverty rates. Here is the increase in the minimum wage, and it shows where child poverty is. The other chart showed families living in poverty. This is what happens in States with a higher minimum wage. Again, these are all Census Bureau figures. So we can do something about child poverty by increasing the minimum wage. And there are many other things we can do, such as increase the earned-income tax credit, support the CHIP, Medicaid expansion, and other types of outreach programs. But one thing we know we can do, and what we have before the Senate this afternoon, is the issue of whether we are going to make progress in reducing child poverty. That is the issue. That is one of the significant outcomes of the vote this afternoon. We are seeing at the present time, according to the USDA, that we have 12.4 million children who are hungry under the Bush economy. This particular line is left out of the speeches on Wall Street. We have 12.4 million children who are going hungry every single day according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But here we see what happens with these 6.4 million children who will benefit from this increase in the minimum wage. This is the spinoff from the increase in the minimum wage. We are going to get better attendance in our schools, better concentration, and better performance. We have seen that time and time again. We are going to get higher test scores and higher graduation rates; children with stronger immune systems, better health, fewer expensive hospital visits, and fewer run-ins with the juvenile justice system. We should go back and look at the Perry preschool programs. The studies reflect that when we make these investments in children that we will see every one of these kinds of indicators come out in a positive way. And increasing the minimum wage, as I mentioned, will have an impact on 6.4 million children. I will make just one final point, Madam President. We have 50,000 spouses of our military who are working today, 50,000 of them and their husbands, primarily husbands but also wives, who are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, and many of them are in Iraq or Afghanistan or served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are earning $5.15 or slightly more an hour today. So when we ask what can we do to indicate to our men and women in uniform that we have some respect for their families, well, we have important responsibilities to their families. We can't expect we are going to have top-notch fighting personnel if they are worried about the economic condition of their families. Any military leader will tell you that. So we have a responsibility to them because they are part of our national security, but we have a responsibility to them also if we are interested in having the most efficient kind of fighting force. Yet we have 50,000 members whose families are out there earning $5.15 or slightly more an hour. That can change. That will change. We can increase the benefits that reach these families. Hopefully, we have had a good opportunity to talk about these issues. At earlier times in the debate we had questions about, well, what is going to be the impact on small business. We showed the charts where they had increased the minimum wage in some States and, actually, the numbers of small businesses and the expansion of small business and the profitability of small business had all been enhanced. We had the question: Well, if we increase the minimum wage, will there be an increasing loss of employment? We demonstrated here the best answer to that is what has happened in the past. At other times, historically, when we saw this kind of increase in the minimum wage, we actually saw the unemployment figures continue to strip downward and the employment figures continued to drift upward. Those are the statistics. We put them out here and we haven't been challenged on any of these figures. We also hear, although not a great deal during the course of this particular debate but in other debates, that this action will be inflationary. So we put the chart up that showed if we provide an increase in the minimum wage, in terms of the payroll, that the increase is just one-fifth of 1 percent of total payroll in this country. So the idea that it is going to add to inflation is basically misleading. Of course, it doesn't compare to the kinds of increases we have seen in a lot of these corporate salaries. I wish we had heard complaints about some of that as we were talking about the pressures of increased payout. The arguments in favor of the increase are compelling, they are overwhelming, and, hopefully, we are going to have an opportunity this afternoon to finally get, after 10 years, an increase in the minimum wage. We have been standing virtually in the same place for 10 years trying to get an increase. We had 16 days of debate on the increase in the minimum wage outside of the last 9 days. So that is 25 days of discussion on the floor of the Senate as to whether we are going to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over, basically, a 2-year period. It has taken us all that time to get the Senate of the United States to hopefully vote positively on that proposal, but I am very hopeful that will be the case later in the afternoon. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I support the bipartisan compromise legislation on Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. It is a stunning repudiation of the President's misguided strategy in Iraq, and it will put the Senate squarely on record in opposition to the surge. It is a clarion call for change and a vote of no confidence in the President's failed policy. It was wrong for the President to take the country to war when we did, the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given. It is wrong to compound that mistake now by sending tens of thousands of additional American troops into the middle of a civil war now taking place. The American people oppose this escalation. Many generals oppose it. A bipartisan majority of Congress opposes it as well. I especially commend our colleague, Senator Warner, for his extraordinary service to the Nation and making this compromise possible. Could our message to the White House be any louder or clearer? I intend, however, to press for binding action that will prevent the surge, unless the President changes course. If he doesn't, I will seek a vote at the first appropriate opportunity. It is wrong for the President to escalate this war and send more American soldiers into the cauldron of civil war. We are very hopeful that through the course of the afternoon we are going to be finally able to get a vote on the increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. This is the 9th day we have been on this particular legislation. We have had over $240 billion worth of increased tax preferences that have been suggested and recommended-- always on the increase on the minimum wage. This is not a very complex issue. We have not raised the minimum wage in over 10 years. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down and down, and even with the increase now to $7.25 an hour, it will only be restored to the purchasing power it had 10 years ago. This is an issue of fairness. It is about people who work and work hard. It is about men and women of dignity who want to do a good job and also want to provide for their children. So I am very hopeful we will have a chance this afternoon to move ahead and vote. We, on this side, have been prepared to vote on that increase from the first day. The House of Representatives only took 4 hours. The Democrats were joined by 80 Republicans to increase the minimum wage. But over here, we have had 9 days of debate on the minimum wage, with a host of different amendments and still, outside of cloture, we would have 96 amendments that would have been offered by our friends on that side. I saw yesterday that the President of the United States went to Wall Street and made a speech about how good everything was in terms of the American economy. I noticed that. I read through the speech. He was very robustly cheered by Wall Street during his recitation of some of the facts of what has been happening in the American economy. But although the economy has worked very well for Wall Street--I don't know of anybody who is doubting that--it is a different situation on Main Street. We have seen and heard, during the course of this debate, from many of our colleagues who related many of the stories they witnessed firsthand as they campaigned in their States and as they supported the initiatives that took place in some six States across the country. Rather than jobs that were going to lift you out of poverty, they are ending up being jobs that keep you in poverty. A minimum wage job was never meant to keep you in poverty. That is what it is doing today. To review what our situation is, looking at the growth of poverty in the United States, these are some of the figures that were not included in the President's speech yesterday. Between 2000 and 2005, 5.4 million more Americans are in poverty in this Bush economy. This is in the last 5 years, from 2000 to 2005. What is more distressing is the number of children who are now living in poverty. This is the other side of the economic coin. This is not Wall Street; this is what is happening in communities all across our country. These are census figures, as of August 2006. We have 1.3 million more children who are living in poverty. We have not seen a reduction in the number of children in poverty; we have seen an increase in the number of children in poverty. This has followed quite a series of economic policies that have brought us to where we are at the present time. We saw that between 1947 and 1973--to put this administration's economic policies in some perspective because I think it is useful to try to find out exactly what it is and to understand it better. Rather than taking one speech at a time, why don't we look at what has been happening to the economy over the period of recent years. This chart reflects statistics from 1947 to 1973, over a 25-year period, and these indicators are the five different quintiles of income for the American economy, with the lowest at 20 percent. What we are seeing is that all of the different economic groups rose and moved together. Actually, the ones that rose the most were those at the lowest part of the economic ladder. But what this chart is saying is that the economy of the United States of America was working for everyone during this 25-year period. Everyone. Everyone across the board was benefiting from the expanding economy. If we look at 1973 to 2000, we begin to see the growth of these great disparities. This is from the Economic Policy Institute, and these are figures from 1973 to 2000. It was interesting that in the President's speech he talked about where we were 25 years ago. Of course, 25 years ago is when President Reagan was President, and this is what we find, which is right in the middle of that period and when this major disparity started to grow. This would be, obviously, starting in 1980, and this is 1973 to 2000. The previous chart showed them all about even, with the lowest growing the fastest. Now we are seeing the flow line and the top moving along the fastest. And if we break this out even further, between 1973 and 2000, we find this growth disparity starting under the Republicans. It is 1980. The President made the reference to 25 years ago, and that is when the growth of this disparity started, and that is due to economic policies. Economic policies. You just can't get away from it. If we look from 2000 to 2004, this chart reflects what has happened. Take the line that goes right across, and we find out that low-income Americans are actually losing income and falling the fastest. This is a Census Bureau historical income table. These are the governmental figures. So this isn't a speech, these are governmental figures. It shows this extraordinary growth in these disparities, and the people who have suffered the most have been children and also those at the lower end of the economic ladder, who are the minimum wage workers. And that is what we are trying to change on the floor of the Senate, to give them a break and give them a raise to $7.25. We can see what has happened as a result of these economic policies of the recent past. These are the UNICEF child poverty figures, and we see across the industrial world that the United States has the highest child poverty rate, the highest child poverty rate of any industrial country in the world. So we have this idea on Wall Street that we can say everything is hunky-dory and yet be a nation where we have the highest child poverty rate in the world. And Lord only knows that this weekend probably every person in this Chamber will be making a speech about how children are our future and we have to invest in them, all of which is absolutely true, but we have been failing in our responsibility to look after what has been happening to the children in our country. One might say: Well, this is all very interesting, but what has the minimum wage got to do with any of this, Senator? It is interesting, but the increase in the minimum wage doesn't solve these issues. And I agree with the President that we have to do more in terms of education. We have to do more in terms of training and in health and in nutrition for these children. There is a great deal more we have to do for children. It all starts, obviously, in the home, but schools are next, and then communities. We all have to do a great deal more, but these are rather startling indictments. Look at where the poverty rate is in the United States. In States that have a high minimum wage, they have lower poverty rates. This is directly related to the subject matter here. We have talked generally about economic trends. We have talked about the growth in poverty and the growth in child poverty. So one might ask: What can we do about it? Well, one major step forward we can take is doing something about the minimum wage. Let's prove it. Look at this chart. These are States with higher minimum wages. They are the States that have voted for an increase in the minimum wage over the Federal minimum wage. Again, these are the Census Bureau's figures. The national poverty rate we see is the red line, and the States that have a higher minimum wage than the national average have less child poverty. Less child poverty. This chart reflects poverty rates generally, with the next chart reflecting lower child poverty rates. Here is the increase in the minimum wage, and it shows where child poverty is. The other chart showed families living in poverty. This is what happens in States with a higher minimum wage. Again, these are all Census Bureau figures. So we can do something about child poverty by increasing the minimum wage. And there are many other things we can do, such as increase the earned-income tax credit, support the CHIP, Medicaid expansion, and other types of outreach programs. But one thing we know we can do, and what we have before the Senate this afternoon, is the issue of whether we are going to make progress in reducing child poverty. That is the issue. That is one of the significant outcomes of the vote this afternoon. We are seeing at the present time, according to the USDA, that we have 12.4 million children who are hungry under the Bush economy. This particular line is left out of the speeches on Wall Street. We have 12.4 million children who are going hungry every single day according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But here we see what happens with these 6.4 million children who will benefit from this increase in the minimum wage. This is the spinoff from the increase in the minimum wage. We are going to get better attendance in our schools, better concentration, and better performance. We have seen that time and time again. We are going to get higher test scores and higher graduation rates; children with stronger immune systems, better health, fewer expensive hospital visits, and fewer run-ins with the juvenile justice system. We should go back and look at the Perry preschool programs. The studies reflect that when we make these investments in children that we will see every one of these kinds of indicators come out in a positive way. And increasing the minimum wage, as I mentioned, will have an impact on 6.4 million children. I will make just one final point, Madam President. We have 50,000 spouses of our military who are working today, 50,000 of them and their husbands, primarily husbands but also wives, who are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America, and many of them are in Iraq or Afghanistan or served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are earning $5.15 or slightly more an hour today. So when we ask what can we do to indicate to our men and women in uniform that we have some respect for their families, well, we have important responsibilities to their families. We can't expect we are going to have top-notch fighting personnel if they are worried about the economic condition of their families. Any military leader will tell you that. So we have a responsibility to them because they are part of our national security, but we have a responsibility to them also if we are interested in having the most efficient kind of fighting force. Yet we have 50,000 members whose families are out there earning $5.15 or slightly more an hour. That can change. That will change. We can increase the benefits that reach these families. Hopefully, we have had a good opportunity to talk about these issues. At earlier times in the debate we had questions about, well, what is going to be the impact on small business. We showed the charts where they had increased the minimum wage in some States and, actually, the numbers of small businesses and the expansion of small business and the profitability of small business had all been enhanced. We had the question: Well, if we increase the minimum wage, will there be an increasing loss of employment? We demonstrated here the best answer to that is what has happened in the past. At other times, historically, when we saw this kind of increase in the minimum wage, we actually saw the unemployment figures continue to strip downward and the employment figures continued to drift upward. Those are the statistics. We put them out here and we haven't been challenged on any of these figures. We also hear, although not a great deal during the course of this particular debate but in other debates, that this action will be inflationary. So we put the chart up that showed if we provide an increase in the minimum wage, in terms of the payroll, that the increase is just one-fifth of 1 percent of total payroll in this country. So the idea that it is going to add to inflation is basically misleading. Of course, it doesn't compare to the kinds of increases we have seen in a lot of these corporate salaries. I wish we had heard complaints about some of that as we were talking about the pressures of increased payout. The arguments in favor of the increase are compelling, they are overwhelming, and, hopefully, we are going to have an opportunity this afternoon to finally get, after 10 years, an increase in the minimum wage. We have been standing virtually in the same place for 10 years trying to get an increase. We had 16 days of debate on the increase in the minimum wage outside of the last 9 days. So that is 25 days of discussion on the floor of the Senate as to whether we are going to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over, basically, a 2-year period. It has taken us all that time to get the Senate of the United States to hopefully vote positively on that proposal, but I am very hopeful that will be the case later in the afternoon. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I have said during the course of the last 9 days, on this side of the aisle we are prepared to go ahead and vote. We have been prepared to vote since the first day we were on this legislation. It only took 4 hours for the House of Representatives to debate this issue and then to proceed to a vote. We have been on this for 9 days. We have debated an increase to the minimum wage 16 other days since the last increase. Twenty-five days of debate about the increase in the minimum wage. Imagine that, 25 days taking up the time of the United States Senate. With all the challenges we face in education, in energy, in health, and jobs, all the challenges we are facing in terms of environmental issues and foreign policy issues, we have spent 25 days on whether we are going to increase the minimum wage. Twenty-five days during this period of time. On this side, we are prepared to move ahead. We are prepared to move ahead. The President of the United States made this talk yesterday on Wall Street, and it was well received and cheered on Wall Street, as he talked about how well the economy has been proceeding. Well, I took a few moments earlier in the day to talk about the increase in the number of families who are living in poverty. We have close to 2 million more children living in poverty today than we had 5 years ago. Two million more families living in poverty than we had 5 years ago. That is according to the census. That is not some speech writer's concept, those are hard facts. President John Adams, one of our great Founders, said facts are stubborn things. Those numbers are stubborn things. Facts speak. Increased numbers of Americans have gone into poverty over the last 5 years, with an increase in the number of children who have gone into poverty. Other countries have addressed the problems of poverty and have lifted children out of poverty, lifted families out of poverty, and most of them have used an increase in the minimum wage to do it. You have to understand the problem in order to address it, and this President, evidently, doesn't understand the kinds of pressures that are on working families and middle-income families. Members of some of our great churches in this country have strongly supported the increase in the minimum wage. We have over 1,000 different organizations that have supported the increase in the minimum wage. I have included most of their letters of support in the Record. Here is one from the Urban League: Passing this wage hike represents a small but necessary step to help lift America's working poor out of the ditches of poverty and onto the road toward economic prosperity and will narrow the financial gap between Americans of color and whites. That is the National Urban League president, President Morial. Here we have an extraordinary group of business owners and executives for a higher minimum wage. They are some of the large companies in the country and some of the small companies. It is six pages long in terms of the companies themselves, ranging from Mr. Alex Von Bidder, president of the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York, a very high-cost restaurant, to some of the small mom-and-pop stores, but all of them expressing the view that: We expect an increased minimum wage to provide a boost to local economies. Businesses and communities will benefit as low-wage workers spend their much-needed pay raises at businesses in the neighborhoods where they live and work. Higher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, improving product quality, customer satisfaction, and company reputation. In a recent National Consumers' League survey, 76 percent of American consumers said how well a company treats and pays its employees influences what they buy. I also have a letter from the president of Catholic Charities, Father Larry Snyder, and included in his letter are these words: Over the last several years, our agencies have been coping with steady increases of 20 percent each year in requests for emergency assistance because low-wage workers simply cannot earn enough to cover rent, child care, food, utilities, and clothing for their families. Many people served by Catholic Charities agencies are poor despite full-time employment at the bottom of the labor market: cleaning houses and office buildings, harvesting and preparing food, watching over children of working parents. They contribute to our Nation's economic prosperity. Yet the current minimum wage leaves them nearly $6,000 below the poverty line. People who work full time should not live in poverty. Then he continues: Our Catholic tradition teaches that society, acting through government, has a special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor. Catholic social teaching tells us that a just wage is not just an economic issue--it is a moral issue. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated in its pastoral letter, Economic Justice for All, ``all economic institutions must support the bonds of community and solidarity that are essential to the dignity of persons.'' The dignity of persons, that is what the increase in the minimum wage is about. It will help those 6 million children get a chance to maybe buy a book and read a little more, maybe even participate in a birthday party, maybe have a chance to spend a little more time with their parent because their parent will not have to have two or three jobs. Here they are talking about the importance of dignity, ``essential to the dignity of persons.'' That is what this debate is about, the dignity of persons. And the list goes on. Virtually all of the churches of faith have all recognized the importance of this issue, and interestingly, they have all pointed out what this letter says from Catholic Charities; that over the past several years their agencies have been coping with steady increases of 20 percent each year in requests for emergency assistance because low-income workers simply cannot afford the necessities. That is true about my food bank in Boston. I was there just a few weeks ago talking to those who run it. It is an extraordinary institution. They have the same kinds of demands. We hear it all over the country. Yet we have the President talking on Wall Street about everything is fine. So what are some of the facts? We are finding out what is happening. First of all, the Bush economy fails American families' wallets. This is the median household income: $47,599 in 2000 and $46,326 in 2005. These numbers are from the Bureau of the Census. Imagine people opening up their newspapers and seeing the pictures of the President being cheered on Wall Street talking about how well the economy is going. No one is doubting that the economy is working well for Wall Street. We are not talking about that. If you are asking the Census Bureau, not a speech writer but the Census Bureau, these are their figures, and this is what has been happening to the median household income. It has declined $1,273. That is from the Bureau of the Census. That is what has happened to the median household income across this country. We have those members of our various faiths talking about the increase in demand, the 20-percent increase in demand. Yet we are seeing these kinds of figures. We see this kind of drop in real income. Yet let's look at the cost of the things these individuals have to buy. We have the decline in the family income, but look at what has happened. Gas has gone up 36 percent; health insurance, 33 percent, which is a very modest estimate; nationwide college tuition, 35 percent; housing, 38 percent. And I would say, for the most part, these are rather modest. They come from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the College Board's Annual Survey of Colleges. In my district, certainly in New England, those numbers are a great deal higher. But, nonetheless, it makes the point that real income has gone down and the cost of everything that a family has to buy, in terms of gasoline, health insurance for their family, college tuition, and housing has gone up. Look at the end of this chart. Wages stagnant across the way; up 1 percent. These are the figures. We haven't put the food in there, but these are strong indicators, and certainly food has gone up, although perhaps not as high as these indicators. Let's look at the other side and see what has been happening down there on Wall Street. My goodness, look at this chart. Look what has happened to corporate profits during this same time. While real family income has been going down, these corporate profits have grown by 80 percent, 80 percent they have gone up. Eighty percent. Real income for the family has gone down over the last 5 years, but corporate profits have gone up 80 percent. No wonder the President was cheered on Wall Street. No wonder. And look on the bottom line. That is the minimum wage. It slows, the extraordinary explosion in corporate profits. Yet the minimum wage has not gone up because our Republican friends refuse to let it go up. This is not any mystery. The Democrats are ready to vote. We are ready to vote this afternoon. We were ready to vote when it first came up, or at any time, but we can't get an agreement to vote. We are going to have to get it because the time is going to run out sometime tonight. So these are the corporate profits that have gone up. Here is the minimum wage worker that has to work more than a day just to fill up his tank with gasoline. These are the kinds of things that they are faced with. And as we have pointed out earlier, more than a thousand Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith leaders say that minimum wage workers deserve a prompt, clean, minimum wage increase, with no strings attached. This is Let Justice Roll, January of this year. I have given the statistics, the flow lines, the charts, and so, Madam President, let me wind up this part of my presentation by mentioning what it means in real people's terms. An increase in the minimum wage helps Constance Martin of Pittsburgh, PA. Constance used to have a good job that paid a decent wage. Then her son got cancer. She was forced to choose between that job and taking care of her child. So now she works for $5.50 an hour at Kentucky Fried Chicken. Her job has no health care or other health benefits. She can barely afford to pay the rent and utilities, much less to give her son the care he needs. When Pennsylvania raised its minimum wage at the State level last year, it was a help but still not enough to keep pace with the cost of living. A Federal raise would allow her to pay off her bills and provide for her son's future instead of living day to day and hand to mouth just to get by. A raise in the minimum wage would help Tonya Schmidt. Tonya is a single mother with two children, ages 8 and 11. She works at Little Caesar's pizza. It is hard work, but she likes her job and is good at it. Tonya talked about how hard it is for her to get by each month. Her family lives in a converted motel room, but she has trouble making rent. She doesn't have a car but relies on friends and family to take her to the grocery store to buy food for her children. Tonya can't afford the basic necessities for her children. She often cannot afford to buy her children the clothes they need to go to school. Tonya says a higher minimum wage would help her provide her kids with these basic necessities, and it might help her get a few steps ahead to buy a used car or pay for car insurance so that she could go to the grocery store on her own. A raise in the minimum wage would help Gina Walter from Ohio. Gina, a 44-year-old single mother, works in a retail job at a thrift store. Gina earns $6.25 an hour, just over $12,000 per year. She has no car or health insurance and hasn't taken a vacation in 6 years. It takes Gina 2 full days of work just to pay her gas bill every month. She cuts her own hair because she can't afford to get a haircut. But Gina goes to work every day. She works hard and tries to build a better life for her family. That is the typical statement: working hard, trying to provide for their family. This bill will help Gina provide better opportunities for her 18- year-old daughter. It will help pay her gas bill and be able to go get a haircut. It might even help her finally take that vacation she so richly deserves. Madam President, this is what we are talking about on the floor of the Senate. I will speak later about what I really think about this increase in the minimum wage in terms of it being the defining aspect of our country's humanity and a reflection of our sense of decency and our sense of fairness. But it is a scandal that we have not increased our minimum wage over a 10-year period. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to do it before the day is out. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, in just a few moments the Senate will vote on the issue of increasing the minimum wage. We have been debating this issue for some time. At the final moments here, I, first of all, thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, for his willingness to work together. We do not always agree, but we agree more often than one might expect, and we have gotten good things done in our committee. I always enjoy working with him. We have had some differences on this issue, but we always know we have a good deal of respect for each other; I certainly for him. I know it is not appropriate to make personal comments on the floor of the Senate, but I am, in any event. It is Senator Enzi's birthday today, and we wish him the very best on this particular occasion.

Mr. KENNEDY. Just finally, I think those of us who are in this Chamber understand we want to be one country with one history and one destiny. We want to make sure that for all people, in all parts of our Nation, they are going to have a part of the American dream. We, as a nation, do not want to have a subclass, a subclass of workers who cannot emerge out of a minimum wage for themselves or for their families. We recognize that work has to pay. What we are trying to do with the increase in the minimum wage is to say to men and women of dignity--primarily to women because women are the greatest recipients of the minimum wage, to their families and their children, to men and women of color--that we understand if you work hard in the country that has the strongest economy in the world, you should not have to live in poverty. You should not have to live in poverty. And raising the minimum wage is going to help to make sure that particularly those children--those 6 million children--are going to have a more hopeful future. Additionally, we want to send a very important message to all of those children. This is really just the beginning. We have a change in direction in this country, as we have seen in the House of Representatives and here in the Senate. And we want to give assurances to those families that hopefully are going to get some boost in the minimum wage that we are going to work on the education for those children. We are going to work to make sure they are going to get the kind of help and assistance so that education is going to be available to them. We are going to work to make sure we get a reauthorization of the SCHIP program, an expansion of the Medicaid Programs, because we want to make sure they are going to be healthy, they are going to have the opportunities for education. We are going to make sure as well, to the extent we can, they are going to be able to live in safe and secure neighborhoods. We have a responsibility in this country of ours to make sure-- particularly for children in this Nation, but for workers in this country--that their work is going to be recognized, respected, and they are going to be treated justly and fairly. That is what the minimum wage is all about. It is a moral issue, as the members of the church have all told us about. And we, hopefully, will get a resounding vote of support for a long-awaited increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have now spent 8 long days debating whether to raise the minimum wage by $2.10 per hour. During this time, we have had quite a bit to say about quite a variety of issues. We have talked about education. We have talked about heath care. We have talked about tax policy and immigration policy. We have actually talked very little about raising the minimum wage. We have not had nearly enough debate about what this bill would actually do, so I can honestly say that I am pleased when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle come down the floor with the intent of actually talking about the Fair Minimum Wage Act. Unfortunately, while I applaud them for addressing the issue at hand, their criticisms of the Fair Minimum Wage Act are woefully misplaced. My Republican colleagues are perpetuating some of the most common misconceptions about raising the minimum wage, and it is important to set the record straight. My colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, raised concerns about the private sector costs of raising the minimum wage. He argued that an increase will prove detrimental to the economy in general, or to the business community in specific. He is correct that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will cost the private sector more than $10 billion over 5 years. However, this is a mere drop in the bucket of the national payroll. All Americans combined earn $5.4 trillion a year. A minimum wage increase to $7.25 would be less than one-fifth of 1 percent of this national payroll--far too trivial to cause inflation or other economic harm. The simple fact is that employers can afford to increase wages in the current economy. Workers are producing more, but earning less. Productivity has increased by 31 percent since 1997, yet minimum-wage workers have not received a raise. This increase ensures that minimum- wage workers, not just employers, benefit from the fruits of their labor. Now Senator Alexander also suggests that we shouldn't interfere with the market forces that set wages for low-wage workers. But we need to intervene when there's a market failure that needs correcting, and that's clearly the case with our stagnant minimum wage. Low-skilled workers, unlike high-skilled workers, do not generally have the bargaining power to demand wage increases. Even if they work harder, all their extra efforts are going into profits. Corporate profits have grown by 80 percent since Bush took office, while wages are stagnant. We need to act to make sure minimum wage workers don't get left behind. My colleague also expresses concern about the effect of a minimum wage on small business. He claims that the majority of minimum wage workers are employed by small businesses, and that small businesses will suffer if the minimum wage is raised. But the small business community doesn't agree. A recent Gallup poll found that 80 percent of small business owners do not think that the minimum wage affects their business, and three out of four small businesses said that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would have no effect on their company. Additionally, nearly half of small business owners think that the minimum wage should be increased, and only 16 percent of owners think the minimum wage should be reduced or eliminated entirely. In fact, historical evidence suggests that a minimum wage increase can actually be beneficial to small business. A 2005 study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found States with minimum wages above the Federal level are generating more small businesses than states with a minimum wage at the Federal level. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of small businesses rose 5.4 percent in the ten States, including at had a minimum wage higher than the Federal level, compared to 4.2 percent in the other 40 States. The number of small retail businesses also grew faster in these States. I appreciate Senator Alexander's concerns about the economic impacts of a minimum wage raise, those concerns are misguided. The economic doomsday scenario that Senator Alexander predicts simply will not materialize from this long-overdue increase in the minimum wage. The Senator doesn't have to take my word for it--over 650 prominent economists, including 5 Nobel Prize winners, agree that a modest increase in the minimum wage--like the one proposed in the Fair Minimum Wage Act--``can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed.'' In addition to arguing about the economic impacts this bill, several of my colleagues have argued that raising the minimum wage is not an effective anti-poverty program, but instead will benefit primarily secondary earners and families well above the poverty line. This counterintuitive assertion is not borne out by the facts. The vast majority of minimum wage workers are hard-working Americans struggling to get by on what the minimum wage pays them for their contribution to our economy. And that is not easy. A minimum wage increase benefits poor American families. According to the Economic Policy Institute, almost 70 percent of those who would benefit are adult workers, not teenagers seeking pocket change. Nearly half of these adults are sole breadwinners for their families. Nearly 40 percent of the benefits from a minimum wage increase would go to households with an average annual income of less than $17,000. It is important to remember that those earning the minimum wage are not just starting out in the workforce. Many hardworking people become trapped in low-paying jobs and have trouble getting ahead. A report from the Center for Economic Policy Research shows a third of minimum wage earners from ages 25 and 54 will still be earning the minimum wage three years later. Only 40 percent of them will have moved out of the low-wage workforce 3 years later. Certainly raising the minimum wage is only one of many steps that we should take to address the problem of poverty in this nation. Several of my Republican colleagues have suggested that we should examine ways to improve the Earned Income Tax Credit, and I look forward to working with them on this issue. But none of this changes the fundamental fact that the Federal minimum wage is at its lowest real value in 50 years and continues to fall further and further behind each day. Minimum wage workers have been waiting longer than ever before in history for an increase, and a raise is long-overdue. Now, my colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, went so far as to suggest that raising the minimum wage will actually harm poor workers, because it will cause them to lose other government benefits. That's just not the case. The Fair Minimum Wage Act will bring working families out of poverty. The minimum wage increase--plus food stamps and the earned income tax credit--brings a family of four with one minimum wage earner from 11 percent below the poverty line to 5 percent above the poverty line. Now it's true that some minimum wage workers may lose a portion of their food stamp benefits, but their increased earnings and the increased benefits they receive through the earned income tax credit will more than offset any loss of benefits and provide them with additional flexibility to meet their family's needs. They will also remain eligible for housing assistance and other essential government programs. Minimum wage workers will also benefit from a raise in the long run. They will be earning higher wages, paying more into Social Security, and ultimately receiving more in retirement and disability benefits. Finally, I'd like to address some comments made just this morning by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. Now as Senator Grassley knows, I have always taken the position that we should do this minimum wage bill ``clean''--without any add-ons or tax giveaways. Because it's just a myth that minimum wage increases hurt the business community, there is certainly no need to pay off the business community when we give minimum wage workers a raise. We've raised the minimum wage nine times since the Fair Minimum Wage act was enacted in 1938, and only once have we included a tax package for business. That was during the Clinton administration--an era when we had substantial government surpluses, not the dramatic deficits we're facing now. It's just not responsible to pass unnecessary tax giveaways in the current fiscal environment. Democrats are united in this position. While Senator Grassley suggested this morning that Democrats wanted taxes added to this bill, I remind him that every Democrat in the Senate voted for cloture on the underlying bill--a clean increase in the minimum wage with no tax giveaways. I admit that the tax package contained in the Baucus substitute is not particularly large or offensive, and I understand that it's something we'll likely have to take to get this bill done. But I don't support it, and I certainly don't support any additional tax giveaways being added to this bill. Senator Grassley suggested this morning that tax breaks are a necessary part of any increase in the minimum wage. I would remind the Senator that an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both Houses of the Iowa State Legislature just voted to increase the Iowa state minimum wage to $7.25--the same level provided in this bill--with no tax breaks included. The Senator's State leaders hold the same views as a majority of the U.S. Congress--that minimum wage workers deserve an immediate raise, with no strings attached. I hope that these comments lay to rest the fears of my Republican colleagues. I hope that they can join me in supporting a fair increase in the minimum wage for hardworking Americans across the country. Madam President, I understand the time has expired. Is it necessary to ask for the yeas and nays? It is necessary.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Enzi in introducing the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2007. The goals of the legislation are to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's authority over the safety of prescription drugs after they are approved; to encourage innovation in medical products; to increase access to clinical trials for patients and ensure that doctors and patients are aware of the results of clinical trials involving the drugs they prescribe and use; and to improve the screening of members of FDA's scientific advisory committees to avoid conflicts of interest. The withdrawal of the drug Vioxx from the market 2 years ago demonstrated again that all prescription drugs have risks, many of which are unknown when a drug is approved, or even for years after approval. We need a more effective system to identify and assess the serious risks of drugs, inform health care providers and patients about such risks, and manage and mitigate these risks as soon as they are detected. Our bill will require drugs to have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy when it is approved. For many drugs, the strategy will include only the drug labeling, reports of adverse events, a justification for why only such reporting is needed, and a timetable for assessing how the REMS is working. The FDA will be able to include additional requirements for drugs that pose serious risks, such as by requiring that the drug be dispensed with labels that patients can understand, that the drug company have a plan to inform health care providers about how to use the drug safely, and that a drug should not be advertised directly to consumers for up to 2 years after approval. If a serious safety concern needs to be understood, FDA can require further studies or even clinical trials after the drug is approved. Enhanced data collection and data mining techniques will help identify risk signals earlier and more thoroughly. For drugs with the most serious side effects, FDA will be able to require that its risk evaluation and mitigation strategy include the restrictions on distribution or use needed to assure its safe use. The FDA will be able to impose any of these requirements at the time a drug is approved. The agency can also modify the labeling or otherwise alter a drug's availability after the approval. The drug's manufacturer will propose the overall strategy, or modifications to it, and the FDA and the company will try to work out an adequate compromise. If the agency and the company cannot agree, the agency's Drug Safety Oversight Board can review the dispute and recommend a resolution to senior FDA officials, who will make the final decision. Civil monetary penalties are added to FDA's traditional enforcement authority to ensure compliance. Drug user fees will also be used to review and implement the program. The bill formalizes and makes mandatory what is now only informal and voluntary. Our intent is not to change the standards for approving drugs, but to see that the FDA has the ability to identify, assess, and manage risks as they become known. Better risk management will mean that drugs with special benefits for some patients will remain available, despite serious risks for other patients, because FDA can better identify the risks and manage them. The bill helps to improve drug safety in other ways as well. The Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research will be a new public-private partnership at the FDA to advance the agency's critical path initiative. The initiative is intended to improve the science of developing, manufacturing, and evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, medical devices, and diagnostics. The Institute will be supported by Federal funds and by contributions from the pharmaceutical and device industries. Philanthropic organizations will be able to supplement Federal support. The institute will have a board of directors and an executive director, and will report to Congress annually on its operations. The bill will also expand the public database at NIH to encourage more patients to enroll in clinical trials of drugs. The database will build on the current systems and would include late phase II, phase III, and all phase IV clinical trials for all drugs. A second, publicly available database would include the results of phase III and phase IV clinical trials of drugs, with the possibility that late phase II trials would be added later. Posting of results could be delayed for up to 2 years, pending the approval of the drug or the publication of trial results in a peer- reviewed journal. The public needs to know about the results of clinical trials on drugs. Tragically, such information was not adequately available for the clinical studies of antidepressants in children. Posting information in the clinical trials registry and the clinical trials results database will be requirements for federal research funding and for drug review and approval by the FDA. Both the FDA and other appropriate offices in the Department of Health and Human Services will review the content of submissions to the results database to ensure they are truthful and nonpromotional. These Federal requirements will preempt State requirements for clinical trial databases. Finally, the bill will improve FDA's process for screening advisory committee members for financial conflicts of interest. The agency relies on advisory committees to provide independent, expert, nonbinding recommendations on significant issues. Ideally, committee members should be free of any financial ties to the companies affected by an issue before a committee. But at times, there may be no individual without financial ties to such companies--for example, when the issue involves a rare disease or a cutting edge medical technology. In these cases, the FDA must be able to grant a waiver to allow an individual with essential expertise to serve on the committee. The bill will require the agency to seek qualified experts with minimal conflicts, clarify how it makes waiver decisions, and disclose those decisions at least 15 days before a committee meeting. Our bill is a comprehensive response to drug safety and other important issues involving prescription drugs and other medical technologies. I commend Chairman Enzi and his dedicated staff-- especially Amy Muhlberg--for working closely with us on this proposal, and I urge our colleagues to support it.