Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator would be kind enough to permit me to ask unanimous consent that following the next two speakers, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, be recognized.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. For the information of our Members, we will have a consent agreement offered in a short while. It is the intention of Senator Enzi and myself to have two votes, one on the Sununu-Kerry amendment on small business and one on Feingold, which is the ``Buy American'' amendment. We will have voice votes on those two items and then rollcall votes on an Allard amendment and a rollcall vote on a DeMint amendment in the range of 5 o'clock, for the benefit of our colleagues. We will offer a consent agreement shortly to that effect. But for the information of our colleagues, that is the intention. We are making good progress on other amendments as well. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:10 p.m. today the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Allard amendment No. 116, and that the time until 5:10 p.m. be equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further, that upon disposition of the Allard amendment, the Senate then resume Sununu amendment No. 112 and that Kerry amendment No. 187 to the Sununu amendment be considered and agreed to, the Sununu amendment, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided, that the Senate then consider Feingold amendment No. 127 and that the amendment be modified with the language at the desk, and that it be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 128 and ask that it be set aside.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just for the information of our colleagues, the Feingold amendment is an amendment that has been accepted by the Senate on a number of different occasions. It provides information-reporting on the buying of American goods. This is an effort to increase and support American workers. It has been accepted. We welcome that amendment. The other amendment which my friend and colleague will speak to, Senators Kerry, Snowe, and Sununu, I strongly support. This deals with the women's business center amendment. Our friends on the Small Business Committee have worked long and hard on this. It is a very interesting, innovative, and creative program that has created thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in wages, and it deserves favorable consideration. My colleague will speak to that in just a few moments. On the Allard amendment, Members should understand what the effect of the Allard amendment is, and that is effectively to repeal the minimum wage for any States among the 50 States. That effectively is what the Allard amendment does. It says: Notwithstanding, any employer should not be required to pay an employee the wage that is greater than the minimum wage provided by law of the State in which the employee is employed, and not less than the minimum wage in effect in that State. So effectively it eliminates the minimum wage. It is true we have had the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour. The underlying bill raises it to $7.25, with a very modest tax offset. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to vote on that. It is true that the existing minimum wage is $5.15 an hour and a number of States have gone above this, but the concept of the minimum wage was that it was going to be a minimum payment, a minimum standard. What was accepted at the time of the minimum wage is that in this country, we didn't want to accelerate a rush to the bottom so that we would have competition in the various States to pay the lowest possible wages--sweat labor--in order to try to attract industries into those particular States, but to provide a minimum standard. Hopefully it was going to be a living standard for workers who worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year. I respect the Senator from Colorado, his view on this issue, but if we accepted the amendment of the Senator, it would effectively eliminate the minimum wage as we know it. I think the reason for the minimum wage, as we have tried to point out during the course of this debate in discussion, was to establish a basic floor as a standard for payment for individuals who worked long and hard in some of the most difficult jobs in this country. We have eliminated child labor. We have established laws with regard to overtime. We have tried to be not only the strongest economy in the world but one that is going to respect workers and workers' rights and workers' interests and workers' families. The minimum wage does not do so at the present time, but many of us will continue to battle to try to make sure it does. The Allard amendment brings us all in the opposite direction. If I have any time left, I will reserve it. I know the Senator from Colorado will use his time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if there are no further speakers--

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield a couple of minutes. I understand we have 3 or 4 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I find that there is strong support. We are just having difficulty getting a final time to be able to slot it in at this particular time. I am very hopeful we will be able to have that sometime in the very near future, and I will keep in close touch with the Senator. I thank him for his cooperation. I hope we will be able to. Amendment No. 158

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe under the consent agreement we were going to act now on the Sununu amendment 112 and the Kerry amendment 187; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 187.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I support this amendment offered by Senators Kerry, Snowe and Sununu. This amendment provides essential ongoing support to Women Business Centers and has received bipartisan support in the small business committee and I urge my colleagues to support it. Women small business entrepreneurs are making gains in today's economy and have grown dramatically over the last few decades. In my State of Massachusetts women-owned small businesses have grown by 13 percent since 1997. But they still account for only one-third of all small businesses in the State. Nationally, they make up only 28 percent of all small businesses. Women Business Centers provide essential training and support to women of all incomes, and of all races to help them start and grow their small business. These centers even the playing field for women entrepreneurs who still face significant obstacles in the world of business. The Center for Women and Enterprise in Massachusetts, has served over 12,000 women who created 16,000 new jobs and generated more than $470 million in wages since 1995. We must make this program permanent and make sure that women can participate in small business that is so vital to our national economic growth. Women entrepreneurs are precious national assets that employ millions of workers and generate billions in wages. We should not limit their potential. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to support our women entrepreneurs.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send to the desk the modified Feingold amendment numbered 127.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, for the benefit of the Members, we have today disposed of six amendments. We have 18 other amendments pending. The staffs will work over the evening. Some look like we can move along early tomorrow. We are planning a full day tomorrow. We have had a total of over 90 amendments that have actually been filed. We thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation. We are expecting a full day, with a number of votes tomorrow. We are looking forward in the near future to getting final action on an increase in the minimum wage. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator desires to speak as in morning business, I don't think there would be any objection.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. An independent judiciary is essential to the proper administration of justice. In order to maintain an independent judiciary, it is imperative that judges be protected from the threat of reprisal, so that fear does not influence their decisionmaking. This bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, is an opportunity to protect our judges and help guarantee their independence, and also protect the many other dedicated men and women who serve our judiciary and their families. In recent years, the need for increased judicial security has been highlighted by a number of attacks. After an unfavorable trademark ruling in Chicago, a disgruntled litigant murdered a Federal judge's husband and mother in the judge's home. Two weeks later a State judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy were killed in an Atlanta courthouse. A year after that, death threats were made against U.S. Supreme Court Justices. These attacks are not isolated incidents. On average, Federal judges receive 700 threats a year; threats that are becoming increasingly serious. As these threats and attacks indicate, judges are not currently safe within the walls of our courts, nor are they safe in their homes. We cannot tolerate violence or the threat of violence against judges, court personnel, or their families. Violence against our judiciary represents an assault on our system of government. By statute, the U.S. Marshals Service in the Department of Justice has the primary responsibility for the security of the Federal judiciary. Currently, the Marshals Service is underfunded and understaffed. There is a lack of coordination and communication between the Service and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Federal Protective Service in the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, the Marshals Service struggles to keep up with the security needs of the judiciary in this new high-risk age. There is no reason the system should continue to be so vulnerable. The legislation we are introducing will enhance judicial security in several respects. First, it would require the Marshals Service to cooperate and coordinate with the Judicial Conference on judicial security on a continuing basis. This provision will give the judiciary a needed voice in assessing their security needs. The Marshals Service will receive additional funds to meet its responsibilities. It will have the ability to accurately assess threats in a timely manner, collect and share intelligence on threats among districts and representatives of the FBI, and achieve appropriate staffing levels. In addition, the legislation punishes those who intrude into the personal lives of the judiciary and their families. It punishes those attempting to humiliate the judiciary or their families by recording a false lien or encumbrance against real or personal property and those who post personal information about public officials or their families with the intent to harm. Equally important, the bill authorizes Federal grants to improve security for State and local court systems. The problem of judicial security is shared by all courts, State and Federal alike, and all courts deserve the best possible security protections. To maintain our freedoms as a democratic society, judicial fairness and independence are essential. Threats and acts of violence against the judiciary are unacceptable. Its members must be fully protected. This bipartisan and bicameral bill aids in that protection, and I am honored to join my colleagues in urging that it be passed quickly by Congress and signed by the President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. An independent judiciary is essential to the proper administration of justice. In order to maintain an independent judiciary, it is imperative that judges be protected from the threat of reprisal, so that fear does not influence their decisionmaking. This bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, is an opportunity to protect our judges and help guarantee their independence, and also protect the many other dedicated men and women who serve our judiciary and their families. In recent years, the need for increased judicial security has been highlighted by a number of attacks. After an unfavorable trademark ruling in Chicago, a disgruntled litigant murdered a Federal judge's husband and mother in the judge's home. Two weeks later a State judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy were killed in an Atlanta courthouse. A year after that, death threats were made against U.S. Supreme Court Justices. These attacks are not isolated incidents. On average, Federal judges receive 700 threats a year; threats that are becoming increasingly serious. As these threats and attacks indicate, judges are not currently safe within the walls of our courts, nor are they safe in their homes. We cannot tolerate violence or the threat of violence against judges, court personnel, or their families. Violence against our judiciary represents an assault on our system of government. By statute, the U.S. Marshals Service in the Department of Justice has the primary responsibility for the security of the Federal judiciary. Currently, the Marshals Service is underfunded and understaffed. There is a lack of coordination and communication between the Service and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Federal Protective Service in the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, the Marshals Service struggles to keep up with the security needs of the judiciary in this new high-risk age. There is no reason the system should continue to be so vulnerable. The legislation we are introducing will enhance judicial security in several respects. First, it would require the Marshals Service to cooperate and coordinate with the Judicial Conference on judicial security on a continuing basis. This provision will give the judiciary a needed voice in assessing their security needs. The Marshals Service will receive additional funds to meet its responsibilities. It will have the ability to accurately assess threats in a timely manner, collect and share intelligence on threats among districts and representatives of the FBI, and achieve appropriate staffing levels. In addition, the legislation punishes those who intrude into the personal lives of the judiciary and their families. It punishes those attempting to humiliate the judiciary or their families by recording a false lien or encumbrance against real or personal property and those who post personal information about public officials or their families with the intent to harm. Equally important, the bill authorizes Federal grants to improve security for State and local court systems. The problem of judicial security is shared by all courts, State and Federal alike, and all courts deserve the best possible security protections. To maintain our freedoms as a democratic society, judicial fairness and independence are essential. Threats and acts of violence against the judiciary are unacceptable. Its members must be fully protected. This bipartisan and bicameral bill aids in that protection, and I am honored to join my colleagues in urging that it be passed quickly by Congress and signed by the President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I can have the attention of the Senator from Maine, what I would like to do now is to ask that the amendment be modified with the modification that is at the desk, if that is agreeable with the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a moment or two to thank the Senator from Maine and thank the Senator from Wyoming. If one will take a few moments and look through this amendment and the modification, they will understand what the good Senators have been talking about. It talks about posting to make sure the information is going to be available to small businesses. It talks about distribution, to make sure there is going to be a generous distribution. It talks about a timely distribution, so we are not going to have a final date, and then the Agency is going to delay in terms of posting and distribution. It explains what is necessary for small businesses to be able to comply with the rules and the regulations. It doesn't affect those regulations that have been set and established. And it makes the requirement that it be put in plain English language so that any person is able to understand what is intended and what the rule is covering, and then it has the provision to inform Congress, the appropriate committees, as to what they have done over previous years. This makes a lot of good sense. I commend the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Wyoming, and my colleague, Senator Kerry, who has been involved in this effort, and Senator Landrieu as well. I am very grateful to all of them for working with us. This is a very useful and extremely important and valuable addition to the legislation. I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is desirous to address the overall issue. Mr. President, as I understand it, under the previous order, at noontime, we are going to vote on this amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, shortly, there will be, I expect. At the appropriate time, we will ask for the yeas and nays. We intend to have the vote, for the information of offices, at that time. I see both the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Pennsylvania are here.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with regard to the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, it seems by both the explanation and a first look, this is something that will be very useful and valuable. If the Senator will work with us--I am not prepared, at this time, to recommend the amendment, but we will work on it with him and indicate what our position is in the very near future. But it certainly seems, trying to give some focus and attention to small businesses that are initiated by women, to make a good deal of sense, and it is subject to an authorization, so there is no point of order.