Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing the Student Loan Sunshine Act, to provide greater support for students and families across America who are struggling with great difficulty to pay for college. Over the past 20 years, the cost of attending college has doubled. Today, the average cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is almost $13,000. As a result, students and families are going deeper and deeper into debt to finance the cost of higher education. In 1993, fewer than a third of students at four-year colleges graduated with debt to pay on their student loans. Today that number has doubled. Two- thirds of students now graduate with student loan debt. The average debt load has soared as well. In the past decade, it has increased by 57 percent at public colleges and 38 percent at private colleges. Today, the typical graduate leaves college saddled with $17,000 in student loans. Nowhere has this growth been more pronounced than in private student loans. Until recently, most students who borrowed for college took out loans under the Direct Loan program and the Federal Family Education Loan program--the two main student loan programs subsidized by the Federal Government. With the cost of college rising rapidly and grant aid stagnating, however, more and more students are turning to the private loan sector and are taking out so-called ``alternative loans''--private loans that lenders offer through colleges and universities. Students are also borrowing increasingly from direct-to-consumer education lenders, which include giant lenders such as Sallie Mae that also participate in the FFEL program, as well as other companies that just offer private-market loans, such as Loan to Learn. A decade ago, private loans accounted for only 3 percent of all funds used to finance students' post-secondary education. Since then, the volume of private loans has grown by an astronomical 1200 percent. Today, private loans now total $17 billion, and represent 20 percent of all borrowing for higher education. Many lenders making these private loans claim they're providing an important service. They say that at a time when college prices are rising rapidly, they provide needed funds to help students pay for college. What they won't tell you is the exorbitant cost that countless students are paying for these loans. Unlike loans offered through the federal programs, private loans frequently carry much higher interest rates, especially for students without credit histories and families without strong credit ratings. In some cases, the interest rates on private loans may be as high as 19 percent a year, compared to 6.8 percent for loans offered through the FFEL and Direct Loan programs. The lenders also don't tell you about the aggressive tactics they use to persuade colleges to offer private loans to their students--and to persuade students to borrow directly as well. The private company Student Loan Xpress has offered 100 percent loan approval at colleges if the college agrees to ``brand'' the private loan with the college's name and emblem--making the loan appear to be offered by the college, not the private lender. Other private loan companies encourage borrowers not to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which allows borrowers to obtain loans at lower interest rates. They don't prominently disclose the fact that their interest rates are typically much higher. Some lenders make gifts to college and university employees. Loan to Learn invited college officials and their spouses to an all-expenses paid ``education conference'' in the West Indies. Many lenders who participate in the FFEL program offer similar ``educational conferences'' at fancy hotels, and offer free entertainment and tickets to sporting events to college officials. The Attorney General in New York State has opened an investigation into such practices and is looking into the practices of six lenders, including Sallie Mae, Nelnet, and Educap, the corporate name of Loan to Learn. We need to take immediate steps to stop actions that prevent students from obtaining the best loan agreement possible. That is what the Student Loan Sunshine Act does. First and foremost, it is a consumer protection measure. It will protect student and parent borrowers by ending the inappropriate lender practices I've just mentioned. It prohibits lenders from offering to a college employee any gift worth more than $10, including free or discounted trips, meals, invitations to entertainment events or other form of hospitality. It prohibits lenders from offering services to financial aid offices that create a conflict of interest, such as lending staff during peak loan processing times. It also prohibits lenders from ``branding'' their loans with a college name, emblem, or logo. The Sunshine Act also arms students and parents with the information they need to make wise decisions when they borrow funds for higher education. The Act requires lenders to report any special arrangements they have with colleges to make such loans, and it ensures that this information is conveyed to borrowers. It requires the Secretary of Education, together with members of the higher education community and students, to develop a clear, easy-to- use model format for reporting the terms and conditions of student loans, similar to the APR disclosure required for other types of loans. If a college creates a ``preferred lender'' list, the Act requires the college to disclose clearly and fully why it has identified a lender as a preferred lender. Schools must also include at least three nonaffiliated lenders on the list, so that students have a real choice. Finally, the Sunshine Act also addresses the fast-growing direct-to- consumer educational loan market. It offers new protections for students who take out direct-to-consumer loans, so they don't borrow more than is necessary to pay for their college education. The Act requires all lenders of direct-to-consumer private educational loans to state clearly and prominently that borrowers may qualify for low-interest loans through the Federal Government's loan programs. It also requires lenders to clearly disclose the terms and conditions of the loans they're offering, including any hidden fees, as well as any complaints against the lender that have been filed by consumer agencies such as the Better Business Bureau or the state attorney general's office. Before a direct-to-consumer lender can offer an education loan of more than $1000, the Act requires the lender to notify the borrower's college of the amount of the proposed loan, so that the school can advise the borrower whether the loan exceeds what's necessary to cover the student's cost of attendance after other aid sources are factored in. Students deserve the best loan advice possible from financial aid officers and the best deal from lenders. They have the right to exhaust their federal loan eligibility before turning to more expensive private lenders for aid. Going to college is a lifetime investment, but paying for college is a heavy burden for too many families. As the private student loan market continues to grow, it's our responsibility to protect students from exploitation in that market. I thank the bill's cosponsors, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well. It's time we put students first, and the Student Loan Sunshine Act takes important steps to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleague, Senator Durbin, in introducing the Student Loan Sunshine Act, to provide greater support for students and families across America who are struggling with great difficulty to pay for college. Over the past 20 years, the cost of attending college has doubled. Today, the average cost of attendance at a 4-year public college is almost $13,000. As a result, students and families are going deeper and deeper into debt to finance the cost of higher education. In 1993, fewer than a third of students at four-year colleges graduated with debt to pay on their student loans. Today that number has doubled. Two- thirds of students now graduate with student loan debt. The average debt load has soared as well. In the past decade, it has increased by 57 percent at public colleges and 38 percent at private colleges. Today, the typical graduate leaves college saddled with $17,000 in student loans. Nowhere has this growth been more pronounced than in private student loans. Until recently, most students who borrowed for college took out loans under the Direct Loan program and the Federal Family Education Loan program--the two main student loan programs subsidized by the Federal Government. With the cost of college rising rapidly and grant aid stagnating, however, more and more students are turning to the private loan sector and are taking out so-called ``alternative loans''--private loans that lenders offer through colleges and universities. Students are also borrowing increasingly from direct-to-consumer education lenders, which include giant lenders such as Sallie Mae that also participate in the FFEL program, as well as other companies that just offer private-market loans, such as Loan to Learn. A decade ago, private loans accounted for only 3 percent of all funds used to finance students' post-secondary education. Since then, the volume of private loans has grown by an astronomical 1200 percent. Today, private loans now total $17 billion, and represent 20 percent of all borrowing for higher education. Many lenders making these private loans claim they're providing an important service. They say that at a time when college prices are rising rapidly, they provide needed funds to help students pay for college. What they won't tell you is the exorbitant cost that countless students are paying for these loans. Unlike loans offered through the federal programs, private loans frequently carry much higher interest rates, especially for students without credit histories and families without strong credit ratings. In some cases, the interest rates on private loans may be as high as 19 percent a year, compared to 6.8 percent for loans offered through the FFEL and Direct Loan programs. The lenders also don't tell you about the aggressive tactics they use to persuade colleges to offer private loans to their students--and to persuade students to borrow directly as well. The private company Student Loan Xpress has offered 100 percent loan approval at colleges if the college agrees to ``brand'' the private loan with the college's name and emblem--making the loan appear to be offered by the college, not the private lender. Other private loan companies encourage borrowers not to fill out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which allows borrowers to obtain loans at lower interest rates. They don't prominently disclose the fact that their interest rates are typically much higher. Some lenders make gifts to college and university employees. Loan to Learn invited college officials and their spouses to an all-expenses paid ``education conference'' in the West Indies. Many lenders who participate in the FFEL program offer similar ``educational conferences'' at fancy hotels, and offer free entertainment and tickets to sporting events to college officials. The Attorney General in New York State has opened an investigation into such practices and is looking into the practices of six lenders, including Sallie Mae, Nelnet, and Educap, the corporate name of Loan to Learn. We need to take immediate steps to stop actions that prevent students from obtaining the best loan agreement possible. That is what the Student Loan Sunshine Act does. First and foremost, it is a consumer protection measure. It will protect student and parent borrowers by ending the inappropriate lender practices I've just mentioned. It prohibits lenders from offering to a college employee any gift worth more than $10, including free or discounted trips, meals, invitations to entertainment events or other form of hospitality. It prohibits lenders from offering services to financial aid offices that create a conflict of interest, such as lending staff during peak loan processing times. It also prohibits lenders from ``branding'' their loans with a college name, emblem, or logo. The Sunshine Act also arms students and parents with the information they need to make wise decisions when they borrow funds for higher education. The Act requires lenders to report any special arrangements they have with colleges to make such loans, and it ensures that this information is conveyed to borrowers. It requires the Secretary of Education, together with members of the higher education community and students, to develop a clear, easy-to- use model format for reporting the terms and conditions of student loans, similar to the APR disclosure required for other types of loans. If a college creates a ``preferred lender'' list, the Act requires the college to disclose clearly and fully why it has identified a lender as a preferred lender. Schools must also include at least three nonaffiliated lenders on the list, so that students have a real choice. Finally, the Sunshine Act also addresses the fast-growing direct-to- consumer educational loan market. It offers new protections for students who take out direct-to-consumer loans, so they don't borrow more than is necessary to pay for their college education. The Act requires all lenders of direct-to-consumer private educational loans to state clearly and prominently that borrowers may qualify for low-interest loans through the Federal Government's loan programs. It also requires lenders to clearly disclose the terms and conditions of the loans they're offering, including any hidden fees, as well as any complaints against the lender that have been filed by consumer agencies such as the Better Business Bureau or the state attorney general's office. Before a direct-to-consumer lender can offer an education loan of more than $1000, the Act requires the lender to notify the borrower's college of the amount of the proposed loan, so that the school can advise the borrower whether the loan exceeds what's necessary to cover the student's cost of attendance after other aid sources are factored in. Students deserve the best loan advice possible from financial aid officers and the best deal from lenders. They have the right to exhaust their federal loan eligibility before turning to more expensive private lenders for aid. Going to college is a lifetime investment, but paying for college is a heavy burden for too many families. As the private student loan market continues to grow, it's our responsibility to protect students from exploitation in that market. I thank the bill's cosponsors, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill as well. It's time we put students first, and the Student Loan Sunshine Act takes important steps to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Inouye, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted for the remainder of the 110th Congress to Rachel A. Armstrong, a detailee from the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, who works alongside his staff on issues pertaining to Labor, Health and Human Services and Education and Defense Appropriations and issues pertaining to the continuing resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Baucus. As we get to the opening of this debate, I wish to provide a little sense about where we are on the increase in the minimum wage. Most of those who watched the debate yesterday saw that we had an overwhelming majority of Members who voted effectively for cloture. Usually, that means the end of debate is in sight. But because of various procedural situations we are facing, now we know we are going to have another vote required on cloture. This debate probably will roll on into the very end of the week. There is no reason we can't dispose of the amendments rapidly. There are important responses that should be made, and then we can get about the business of finding ways where we can bring the House and Senate bills to accommodation and get the increase in the minimum wage to those who are hard working and are entitled to this increase. This is our eighth day of debate on this issue. We have had 16 days of debate, outside of these last 8, so we're up to 24 days where we have debated the minimum wage on the floor of the Senate without getting an increase, 24 days we have debated, an issue as simple as going from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour should not take all that period of time. We know that here on the Democratic side we are prepared to vote now, today. I am sure we can get the majority leader to request that we vote at noontime or so today and get this process moved ahead. But, no, there are those on the other side who have a series of amendments and they have them now. The good Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, will respond to the issue which is at hand. I want to reiterate once again that this is not an omnibus tax bill. This legislation is long overdue. It is not an opportunity for Members to present their tax cut wish list. It is Congress' opportunity to finally right the wrong of denying millions of hard-working minimum wage workers a raise for 10 years. Since the minimum wage was last increased 10 years ago, we passed $276 billion in corporate tax breaks. In addition, Congress has cut taxes for individuals by more than a trillion dollars, with most of the benefits going to the wealthiest taxpayers. Unfortunately, for some of our Republican colleagues, there are never enough tax breaks, and they have filed more than 25 amendments proposing new or expanded tax cuts to the minimum wage bill. Many of them would cost billions of dollars and most are not paid for. So we know our friends on the other side are attempting to hold the minimum wage increase hostage for more tax cuts. I believe that is a shameless strategy. As has been pointed out, the Kyl amendment is one of the most expensive of all tax cut proposals. The entire amendment would cost more than $45 billion over the next 10 years. Not a single dollar is paid for. It is $45 billion the American people cannot afford, and it should be rejected. I know we will hear from Senator Baucus as he addresses this issue. We have debated over the period of the last few days tax breaks for corporate America. Over the last 10 years, we have seen $276 billion in tax breaks for corporations and $36 billion in tax benefits to small businesses. We have increased the minimum wage nine times. There has only been one time we have ever added tax benefits. The House of Representatives, with the vote of 82 Republicans, passed a clean bill. That is what we should be about doing here. That is not where we are. A final point I will make is that it came to my attention over the evening that many of the spouses of our service men and women in Iraq are working for low wages. In looking over the numbers of spouses of service men and women in Iraq, there are 50,000 who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Imagine that, 50,000 members of the military force and their families will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. That is not a point to dismiss lightly. I think we ought to get about the business of doing something for those families and spouses. It is difficult for me to believe we have that number, but that is the figure--50,000 working between $5.15 and $7.25 an hour, so they would directly benefit from the raise to $7.25. These are spouses of our military forces, and we are debating another $45 billion in tax cuts. This is supposed to be a debate about an increase in the minimum wage that hasn't been raised for 10 years. All it will do is restore the purchasing power of those on the lower rung of the economic ladder. It seems to me this continued delay is unconscionable. Some have said it is necessary because our good friends on the other side are not prepared to get started on the debate on Iraq. There have been a lot of excuses and we hear all of them. But what has to be recognized is the increase in the minimum wage to $7.25 is going to benefit more than 6 million children. More than one million more children have fallen into poverty in the last 5 years. Six million children who live in homes where there will be an increase will benefit, with all of the implications that has in terms of nutrition, education, health care, and also in terms of the joy families can have when they get at least some small relief. These are hard-working people who are trying to provide for themselves and their families and trying to make a difference in the community. They are men and women of great dignity. We ought to be getting to a final vote on increasing the minimum wage, and we ought to get about it now. If there is going to be additional debate on taxes and other things, let's do it at another time. Let's not hold hostage--which is what's being done here--an increase in the minimum wage for additional tax breaks. Let's not do that. Let's say we have sufficient respect and admiration for these men and women of dignity. They are primarily women in our society--and many of these women who have children. For all these who are working hard at the minimum wage, let's say we have sufficient respect for them so we are not going to hold them hostage to get tax breaks after tax breaks after tax breaks after tax breaks. These men and women are entitled to a Senate decision. We on our side are prepared to vote on it now; the sooner the better. I am grateful to my colleague and friend from Montana for permitting me to say these words. I thank him very much for the courtesy.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between Senators Baucus and Kyl, or their designees, for debate with respect to the Kyl amendment No. 115, as modified; that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Kyl amendment, without further intervening action or debate, all time be considered yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the Baucus-Reid substitute amendment No. 100, as amended; that upon disposition of the substitute amendment, there be 4 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, and the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2, as amended.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 4 minutes equally divided? Amendment No. 100, as Amended

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been 8 days--8 days since we started this debate on the minimum wage. Every Member of this body has made $4,500, and yet we haven't been able to get an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. Forty-five hundred dollars, everyone has made in this body, but minimum wage workers have still been denied. Eight days. How long does it take? How long does it take for this body to be able to say: Yes, we are going to increase the minimum wage. How many more amendments are over there on the Republican side? We have none. We are prepared to vote on final passage right now. But oh, no, we can't do that. There should be no doubt in the minds of working families, of the middle class, who is standing for those who are earning the minimum wage. Since we started this debate, there have been thousands of meals that have been served in nursing homes. There have been thousands of beds that have been made in hotels around this country. There are 6 million children who will benefit from this increase in the minimum wage, who can't afford books to read, who can't afford to buy a present to go to a birthday party, and who can't spend enough time with their parents, because their parents are working 2 or 3 jobs. Today there are 50,000 wives or husbands of soldiers serving in our armed forces who are earning the minimum wage. We can do a favor for those individuals and treat them with respect and dignity by voting for the increase in the minimum wage. We ought to do that right now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote on final passage right now.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Obama and our other colleagues in sponsoring the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, because it addresses an essential aspect of voting rights. For too long, we've ignored the festering problem of deceptive practices intended to intimidate and deceive voters in our national elections and suppress the vote of certain minority groups for partisan gain. The problem is a continuing threat to our democracy, and it's up to our new Congress to outlaw such practices, and I commend the Senator from Illinois for his leadership on this basic challenge. In doing so, we must be vigilant to ensure that the bill does not erode the important division of responsibility in the Department of Justice between civil rights enforcement by the Civil Rights Division and the efforts by the Criminal Division to combat voter fraud. That division of responsibility is essential to convincing voters, particularly those in poor or minority communities to have the trust necessary to work with the Civil Rights Division and to inform it of possible civil rights violations. The bill should clearly provide that, as traditionally has been the case, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division may not investigate matters of voter fraud, although it may provide technical advice and assistance to other parts of the Department in carrying out the requirements of this legislation. We also need to guarantee that additional resources are appropriated to carry out the bill's requirements, so that resources will not be diverted from other important law enforcement activities of the Department. In addition, we must ensure that the bill's civil and criminal provisions are not misused to erode voter participation even further, particularly among poor and minority voters by wrongly targeting voter registration activities or chilling legitimate get-out-the-vote efforts by organizations serving the public interest. I look forward very much to working with my colleagues to deal with these specific issues, and to enact this important new measure as part of our fundamental responsibility to protect the most basic right in our democracy, the right to vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Obama and our other colleagues in sponsoring the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, because it addresses an essential aspect of voting rights. For too long, we've ignored the festering problem of deceptive practices intended to intimidate and deceive voters in our national elections and suppress the vote of certain minority groups for partisan gain. The problem is a continuing threat to our democracy, and it's up to our new Congress to outlaw such practices, and I commend the Senator from Illinois for his leadership on this basic challenge. In doing so, we must be vigilant to ensure that the bill does not erode the important division of responsibility in the Department of Justice between civil rights enforcement by the Civil Rights Division and the efforts by the Criminal Division to combat voter fraud. That division of responsibility is essential to convincing voters, particularly those in poor or minority communities to have the trust necessary to work with the Civil Rights Division and to inform it of possible civil rights violations. The bill should clearly provide that, as traditionally has been the case, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division may not investigate matters of voter fraud, although it may provide technical advice and assistance to other parts of the Department in carrying out the requirements of this legislation. We also need to guarantee that additional resources are appropriated to carry out the bill's requirements, so that resources will not be diverted from other important law enforcement activities of the Department. In addition, we must ensure that the bill's civil and criminal provisions are not misused to erode voter participation even further, particularly among poor and minority voters by wrongly targeting voter registration activities or chilling legitimate get-out-the-vote efforts by organizations serving the public interest. I look forward very much to working with my colleagues to deal with these specific issues, and to enact this important new measure as part of our fundamental responsibility to protect the most basic right in our democracy, the right to vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in morning business at this time?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to, again, thank my friend from Illinois and also our leader for their strong support on the increase in the minimum wage. We will have more as we go on through the morning. We expect to vote at noontime today on the increase on the minimum wage. This is day seven. We had five courageous Republicans who voted with us to pass what we call a clean minimum wage law that would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 without additional kinds of tax provisions in there. The nine times we have increased the minimum wage we have only added tax provisions on one time. It is not necessary to add additional tax provisions, since we are restoring the purchasing power of the minimum wage to what it was some 10 years ago. But I raise another broader issue for a few moments and that is, What is it about these working families that so outrages our Republican friends? What is it about providing a decent wage--some would say it is not decent because it is still so low at $7.25 an hour--but what is it about our Republican friends that they refuse to give us a vote in the Senate? It is true that 80 Republicans voted for an increase over in the House of Representatives. But Republican leadership has been strongly opposed to this over the last 10 years that I tried to bring up an increase in the minimum wage. It goes back a long period of time. We are seeing it once again, here, as the President is against an increase in the minimum wage. I remind those who are watching the Senate deliberations this morning that we do not have any amendments over here on our side. The Democrats do not have any. They have more than 90 amendments over on the other side. I reminded the Senate, they have had amendments for over $200 billion. Some are dealing with Social Security. There are $35 billion in tax cuts on education, but they didn't include any help or assistance for children on the IDEA, those with disabilities or, for the neediest children, the Pell grants. We haven't had any consideration on that. They dropped that amendment in on the minimum wage program, completely unrelated to the minimum wage program. They had health savings accounts to benefit people with incomes of $133,000. We have had all those kinds of amendments, and they continue, if you read through that list. I have gone through those amendments and they continue. My question comes back to this. What is it that the Republican leadership has against working families? I have raised that over the period of the last few days and I raise it today. I was looking back at the record of our Republican friends over the last year or so. They eliminated 6 million workers from overtime. Do we understand that? In the last 2 years, 6 million workers have had their overtime effectively canceled. Since the 1930s, under President Roosevelt, there was a recognition that if people work more than 40 hours a week, they were going to be able to get overtime. The number of those individuals who work more than 40 hours a week is significant. It is over 28 percent in our country today. But this administration eliminated that extra time and a half for 6 million workers. We say: What is it about those 6 million workers? Then we think about the opposition to the increase in the minimum wage. We take away their overtime when we are seeing this extraordinary increase in executive salaries, salaries which are exploding through the ceiling. Take away that overtime for 6 million workers. All right. Then we see the great tragedy we had with Katrina, and we saw the attempts to rebuild after Katrina. What was the first thing the administration said? Eliminate any coverage or protection for workers in terms of their wages down there, what they call the Davis-Bacon program. It means they are not going to get paid what they get paid in the various regions, eliminate that so you can drive wages down even further in New Orleans. What is the reason for that? It is a good way to drive wages down for workers. What is it about people in the construction industry? They average, I think it is $29,000 a year. That is too much for our Republican friends? Or $10,712 for a working American, a man or woman at the minimum wage, and they refuse to give some increase in that to $7.25 an hour? Here you have the average construction worker at $29,000 a year, and you are saying that is too high. What is it about this Republican Party, against the working families? What was in their minds when they eliminated safety positions and reduced the budget for mine safety, prior to the Sago and Alma mine disasters? What was in their minds at that time, to reduce the kind of safety provisions? Is the power of the mine companies so great they can increase the risks for workers? Oh, yes, there are workers down there. They are the ones we want to cut back on, in terms of their overtime. They are the ones we are going to cut back on, in terms of safety. I remember when this President Bush--after the first hearings we had, I think, in our committee--acted to eliminate the protections that had been recommended by President Clinton in the area of ergonomics, particularly affecting women who spend a great deal of time on computers. It affects others--those in the meat-packing industry and poultry industry, workers who perform repetitive kinds of procedures. We had extensive hearings. The Clinton recommendations were very modest. He encouraged companies to get into this and work with industry. Some people thought they were too weak, but they were protecting workers, hard-working people doing some of the most difficult work in America, protecting them so they are not going to get the kinds of complicated health challenges that will disable so many of those. We know what the science is. We have had study after study by the National Academy of Sciences that said do something in Congress. We did something. But oh, no, the Republican leadership said: No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to provide protection for those workers. We are going to cut back on safety for those who work in the mines. We are going to cut back on overtime for 6 million. We are going to refuse to cover the workers down there in New Orleans who are working, trying to rebuild, when this administration basically ignored the problems there. Workers who were out there working, we are going to cut back and skimp on their salaries on this. What is it about working people that this administration--the list goes on. Look at the amendments that are lined up to weaken OSHA. We see the number of lives that have been saved--tens of thousands of lives were saved. We have cut the death rate by more than 77 percent since OSHA has been in effect. There are new problems, new challenges, in terms of toxic substances, we have to look at. What is the voice over there? We hear great speeches about what is happening to the middle class. Let's take a step that can make some difference-- certainly to 6 million children who will benefit if we increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25--6 million children's parents will benefit. We will have that opportunity. I don't know what has changed in productivity. We worked closely together, for years and years, for a decent wage. It shows back in the 1960s, 1965 into the 1970s, we saw where our great American economy was moving along, increasing productivity. That increase in productivity was shared between the corporate world, the business world, and the workers. That is what was happening. We will get the charts later on. Evidently our friends on the other side want to prolong this debate. We will get the charts to show that all America moved along in the 1940s and the 1950s, all the way through the 1960s--each quintile moved along virtually together. If you saw growth in the economy, it benefited all the groups together. What has come over this country, and particularly the Republican Party, to say that no longer works in the United States? We don't want an economy that is going to work for everyone. We want an economy that is going to work for some--a few. What is it about it? I termed it ``greed.'' It is greed. We have seen now what has happened in the change, in the increase in productivity. Still, the minimum wage goes down. Mr. President, my excellent staff found that chart I was referring to--``Growing Together, 1947 to 1973.'' The lowest quintile, the second, third, right up to the very top--if you look at the different colors, you will see that all America moved along together. Now look what has happened. Corporations get a $276 billion tax break, small business a $36 billion tax break, and no increase in the minimum wage. I hope somewhere during the course of this debate, our Republican friends will come out and make at least some argument about either the economics--it is an impossible one to make. You can't say it is the loss of jobs. We have dealt with that issue. They will say you can't increase the minimum wage because it is inflationary in our economy. We show it is less than one-fifth of 1 percent of total wages paid over the course of the year. That argument doesn't work. They will try to say it is not what our country is about, we can't afford that in the richest country in the world, where people are working. We demonstrate that the States which have an increase in minimum wage have grown faster and grown stronger and have a better economic record. And most important, child poverty has gone down. I imagine, over the period of this year, we will hear 100 speeches in the different parts of our country about our children being our future. We have an opportunity today at noontime to do something about that. You don't have to make a speech, you have to vote right. You can vote today and, with that vote, hopefully, expedited process, that we can wind this legislation up and work out the differences with the House of Representatives and get it to the President to sign. Six million children will benefit. So if you are talking about your concerns about middle class, if you are talking about working families, if you are talking about fairness and decency, if you are talking about children's issues, women's issues, civil rights issues, today at noon you have a chance to do something about it. So I hope we will have more of an opportunity as we get closer to the time to add some additional comments. But I would hope that finally this basic, fundamental, and I think irrational, irresponsible, unacceptable, postured position our Republican friends have in terms of opposition--continued opposition, opposition, opposition--to the minimum wage would end. Today we are on the seventh day, but we debated this 16 other days to try to get an increase in the minimum wage without the Republicans letting us have it. How many days? What is the price? We don't even know what the price is. What are we supposed to do--keep bidding it out and sweetening the pot until the Republicans come along? Is that what the Americans want us to do? That is not what we are prepared to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Then I believe the leader's time has been reserved?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, just to put this whole issue in some perspective, I thought I would just take a minute or two to refresh both this body and those who are interested in this issue about increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, about what has happened to workers and what has happened, basically, to the middle class over the period of the last years. Looking at this chart here, from 1947 to 1973, this is when the country was moving along together. This shows the different incomes. It divides the incomes of Americans into five different--effectively buckets: the lowest 20 percent, the second 20 percent, the middle 20 percent, the fourth 20 percent, and the top. If you look at this for a period of 26 years, you will see that all America grew together. The economy worked for all Americans. As a matter of fact, it worked a little bit better for those with the lowest income, but the economy worked for all America. During that period of time, we had Republicans and Democrats alike who voted for the increase in the minimum wage as we increased in productivity. America went along together. What has happened in the last several years, from 2001 to 2004? Here we have the lowest 20 percent. This represents the low-income groups, the minimum wage workers, then the second, third, middle, fourth, and the highest 20 percent is the gray area, and the top 1 percent is demonstrated by the red area. See what has happened to the country, how we have grown further and further apart--the explosion in wealth for the very top and the collapse of the American promise at the very lowest; the cutting out of millions of Americans from the hopes and the dreams and the idea of a fair and just America. Those are the statistics. Those are the facts. We had a minimum wage which reflected that progress for 26 years when America grew together. We have now had 10 years of no growth in the minimum wage, and we see America growing further apart. We have a chance to do something about it this noontime. I am hopeful that we will. As I mentioned earlier, I don't know why it is our friends on the other side have really such a contemptuous attitude about low-income working people. They eliminated the overtime program for 6 million Americans last year--6 million Americans who otherwise would have gotten an increase in the minimum wage. They eliminated that. When we had the crisis down in New Orleans, one of the first things the administration did was eliminate what they call the Davis-Bacon program, which is to provide wages that will be pegged to what the average wage is in that particular region, where construction workers average $29,000 a year. What in the world is wrong with someone making $29,000 a year so that you want to reduce their pay while they are working for the recovery from Katrina? But oh, no, they eliminated that kind of protection. Just as they cut back on the unemployment compensation for workers who were coming out of Katrina, and after the National Academy of Sciences said that with what is happening in the poultry business and the meat-cutting business, with computers, we need to do something primarily about women in the workplace on the issues of ergonomics--no way. No way we are going to look out after workers. It is difficult for me to understand. What is it about it? What really gets our Republican friends that they just can't stand hard- working people? We will hear a lot of comments and lectures about, let's make work pay, that work paying is a real value. I hope we don't hear that lecture anymore around here from that side. I hope we are not going to hear anymore talk of values about it. The leaders of the great religions are in strong support. I have put those comments into the Record. They are in strong support of this. They believe it is a moral issue, to follow the admonition of Saint Matthew: What you do to the least of these, you do unto me. Talk about poverty. Talk about the poor. This is just about a wage, the minimum wage. But it is about a just wage. What is it about that? I see my friend from Ohio on the Senate floor. I know he has been interested in and has spoken about the issues of minimum wage and also about what has been happening in the middle class. I am glad to entertain any questions he might have or yield for any comment that he might wish to make.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that issue?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator understands. I have listened to him speak very eloquently in his maiden speech about what has happened in the middle class of America. The Senator understands that when we saw productivity increase in the 1960s and 1970s, all during this period when there was economic growth, we all went up together. The rising tide raised all the boats across the country. Then look at what happened. Productivity went up, and the real minimum wage went down. Does the Senator not share the belief with me that if workers are going to work hard and produce--we have the labor force that is the hardest working labor force in the industrial world. It works longer, harder, and has had the greatest increase in productivity. Does the Senator not agree with me that at least some of that increase in productivity should have been passed on to working families?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, can I ask the Senator another question. This good Senator was in the House of Representatives last year when the administration limited overtime pay for six million workers, and tens of thousands in my State of Massachusetts--tens of thousands. Close to 60,000 or 70,000 workers lost overtime pay. Overtime pay--if you are going to work more than 40 hours a week, you should be paid overtime. The administration eliminated that overtime pay for workers. They cut back on the protections of Davis-Bacon in the gulf and the recovery of the gulf. The workers down there who were unemployed, they ended the unemployment compensation for those workers who were otherwise eligible for it. This is unemployment compensation. We want to remind everyone that the workers contribute to the unemployment compensation fund. They contribute as workers. If you don't contribute, you don't get unemployment compensation. So these are workers who have contributed to the fund. The fund was in surplus at that time. These are workers who have worked hard and couldn't find the jobs down there, and the administration cut back on those protections, cut back on the ergonomic protections. Even before the Sago mines, we find out they cut back in the mine safety and on safety officials. What is it? What is it, if the Senator from Ohio can help me. I know about the great loss of jobs because of the support for tax incentives that sent jobs overseas and the failure to try and turn off that spigot. That means something for the middle-class workers. So if you add all of those together--we will find a chance now at 12 o'clock--if you add all of these together, we find the hostility--I call it hostility, not indifference--but hostility to workers, and I have difficulty understanding that. Maybe the Senator could help me understand what has happened in his State that has been so adversely impacted, closing some of those provisions that affected impacted workers in the trade program.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more question, I appreciate him mentioning the earned income tax credit, because that can make a difference for families of three or more. They benefit with the earned income tax credit more than the minimum wage. If it is only an individual worker, an individual with a single child, they will benefit more with the increase. But the Senator is right, we ought to be trying to look at these issues in some harmony. But we don't hear any voices on that side to say: OK, Senator, if you want an increase in the minimum wage, we will give an increase in the earned income tax benefit. We will sit down and work something out. We don't hear any of that. I want to draw to the attention of the Senator the fact that it has been 10 years since we have had an increase in the minimum wage, and over that period of time we have provided $276 billion in tax breaks for corporations, $36 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. We hear around here on the floor: Well, we haven't given the businesses enough and we have to put some more tax breaks on here in order to get an increase in the minimum wage. Does the Senator buy that argument?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we are here on day seven now of this discussion. We had 16 days where we talked about the minimum wage another time. And this past week, since we started this debate, every Member of Congress has made $3,840 in the last week. Mr. President, $3,840 is what a minimum wage worker would make in 4 months--4 months. Three thousand eight hundred dollars, every Member of this Senate. Does the Senator find it somewhat troublesome that we are getting paid $3,800 in this past week and we are standing here against an increase in the minimum wage, from $5.15 to $7.25, over a 2-year period? Does the Senator not share with me this extraordinary inequality that is so evident here in this body? Does he find it, as do I, highly depressing in terms of the actions of this body--not in terms of our will to continue fighting, but I was thinking of appropriate words and I kept rejecting the ones I was thinking about.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Just in that time, Ohio addressed the minimum wage, an increase in the minimum wage. Could the Senator in the last minute or so tell us what you found in traveling around, what was on people's minds and why they wanted to vote for it?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I believe our time has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes.