Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, passing S. 1021, the Workforce Investment Act amendments, is an important step toward ensuring America's competitiveness in the global economy. We need a skilled workforce to maintain our competitive edge in this technology-driven economy. This reauthorization of our job-training system created under the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, will help our workers obtain the skills they need to find good jobs with good wages and fulfilling careers in high skilled occupations.

This bill will help our businesses find the skilled workers they need to grow and remain competitive. We have a skilled worker shortage in this country. Fortunately, that can be addressed by ensuring our workers have access to lifelong education, training, and retraining opportunities

The substitute amendment to S. 1021 makes technical changes to the bill that was reported out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. Most importantly, this amendment provides for 100 percent flexibility between WIA adult and dislocated funding streams in order to meet State and local job training needs. However, formula funding for each of these WIA funding streams remains the same. Increased flexibility moves us further toward achieving our goal of an effective, coordinated, and accountable job training system.

This bill allows for real reform shaped at the State and local level with the full participation of the business community. States working in concert with their local governments and leaders should have the option of determining what is best and most needed--for their economy.

There are many other important features of this bill such as improved connections with the private sector, postsecondary education and training, and economic development systems, and a new focus on entrepreneurial skills and microenterprises coupled with the unique needs of small businesses and rural areas.

S. 1021 includes amendments to the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. These amendments encourage coordination with K-12 schools, postsecondary education, and the workforce system so that individuals can overcome the barriers to their participation in the workforce and have an opportunity to gain the literacy, language, or core skills needed to enter and advance in their chosen profession. I am especially pleased that we have been able to define an improved transition process for youth with disabilities in order to achieve significant improvements in postsecondary outcomes for youth with disabilities.

I thank Senator Kennedy and the rest of my colleagues on the HELP Committee for their hard work in getting this important bill passed on a bipartisan basis. I also thank the HELP Committee staff on both sides of the aisle who spent countless hours crafting this bill. I would particularly like to thank Katherine McGuire, Beth Buehlmann, Ilyse Schuman, Scott Fleming, and Aaron Bishop on my staff, and Michael Myers, Carmel Martin, and Connie Garner on Senator Kennedy's staff, and Jane Oates, formerly on Senator Kennedy's staff.

Unless we can make sure that those workers with minimum skills have the opportunities and the resources to improve their ability to meet the challenges of the 21st century workplace, we will find ourselves as a nation losing our competitive advantage in a global economy. I look forward to going to conference and getting this important bill signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 12 which proposes an amendment to our Constitution allowing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the resolution introduced by my colleague from Utah.

Throughout the years of our Nation's existence, many brave men and women have fought and died to defend the freedom that our flag symbolizes. We must honor their memory by protecting our flag and preserving this symbol of our Nation and the unity of the 50 States. I have heard from veterans across my home State of Wyoming about their service and the importance of the flag in both their military and civilian lives. Our flag is a constant reminder of all those who have sacrificed so much so that we might be free.

We are now engaged in a new and different kind of war. We have taken up arms to end the threat of terror. We have been joined by many different nations in that effort, but we are, once again, relying on our own Armed Forces, the greatest fighting force in the world. With the talents and abilities of our service members and our support and prayers, I have no doubt they will get the job done.

When our deployed troops return home, they will deserve our support and encouragement as they return to their everyday lives. I believe they will also expect us to take action to ensure the symbol of our Nation that they carried with them into battle is afforded the protection it deserves. We must ensure our flag is respected and protected as a symbol of our freedoms and the sacrifices that were made.

Over the last couple of days, some Members of this body have made some misleading statements about what this resolution does. Let's be clear--this piece of legislation does not ban anything. It does begin the process of restoring the authority of Congress to pass a flag desecration statute. A constitutional amendment will only become law if it is approved by three-quarters of the States.

I have also heard some of my colleagues claim that the language we are debating is too vague. Again, this is simply the first step in a process. The details will be debated once Congress regains its authority to make laws related to the desecration of the flag. It is then the job of those in Congress to talk about and debate the definition of desecration and what that word will mean in our laws.

Again, I believe our flag should be protected as a symbol of this Nation and our history. It represents us in military actions, in athletic competitions, diplomacy, and any activity we engage in around the world. The flag helped rally the Nation after the attacks of September 11, 2001. It calls to mind those who serve on our police, fire, and emergency response teams, risking their lives every day to ensure we are safe and protected from harm.

Diana and I have a friend from Finland who taught in the United States for a year. She had a flag of Finland that she traveled with while we were debating a flag burning amendment. She couldn't believe that anyone would dishonor their country's flag by burning it. As a symbol of the country, she couldn't believe that anyone would desecrate it in any way. She couldn't imagine that burning or desecrating the flag of a person's own country could have any positive effect. She believed that what people were doing to the symbol of our Nation would have a very detrimental effect overseas.

Changing the law may not change people, but the discussion alone that we are having should point out what is right and wrong and how other countries view the disrespect we demonstrate for our country. People are missing the issue of the protests. They are only seeing the disrespect for the country. We can do better. We must do better. This amendment will help us do better on focusing on problems instead of drama that takes away from ways we can make our lives and our country better.

Our flag symbolizes our hope for the future and our willingness to work together to make this world a better place for us all to live. That hope for tomorrow unites us, guides us, and helps to make us truly one Nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.

I encourage all Senators to support S.J. Res. 12.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator DeWine, Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski in introducing the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006.

The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 is the primary source for the delivery of social and nutrition services for older individuals. Enacted in 1965, the act's programs include supportive services, congregate and home-delivered nutrition services, community service employment, the long-term care ombudsman program, and services to prevent the abuse, neglect and exploitation of older individuals. The act also provides grants to Native Americans and research, training, and demonstration activities.

The 2000 amendments to the act authorized the National Family Caregiver Support Program; allowed State agencies on aging to impose cost-sharing for certain supportive services for older persons; revised the State funding formulas; and required the Department of Labor to establish performance measures for the community service employment program.

Title I of the Older Americans Act set broad social policy objective to improve the lives of all older Americans. It recognized the need for an adequate income in retirement, and the importance of physical and mental health, employment in community services for older individuals and long-term care services.

Title II established the Administration on Aging, AOA, within the Department of Health and Human Services to be the primary Federal advocate for older individuals and to administer the provisions of the Older Americans Act. It also established the National Eldercare Locator Service to provide nationwide information with regard to resources for older individuals; the National Long-term Care Ombudsman Resource Center; the National Center on Elder Abuse; the National Aging Information Center; and the Pension Counseling and Information Program. The 2006 amendments will establish an Office of Elder Abuse Prevention and Services to develop a long-term plan and national response to elder abuse prevention, detection, treatment, and intervention. Further, the 2006 amendments strengthen the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services through an interagency coordinating committee to guide policy and program development across the Federal Government with respect to aging and demographic changes.

Title III authorized grants to State and area agencies on aging to act as

advocates on behalf of older individuals. Title III services are targeted to those with the greatest economic and social need, particularly low-income minority persons and older persons residing in rural communities. It funds supportive services, congregate and home- delivered meals, transportation, home care, adult day care, information assistance, and legal assistance. The 2006 amendments will expand the Caregiver Support Program to permit the use of volunteers to enhance services and increase program authorization levels. In addition, the bill contains a new demonstration project that promises to lead to changes in our long-term care delivery system, leading to consumer driven choices.

Title IV authorized grants for training, research, and demonstration projects in the field of aging. This title supports a wide range of projects including those related to income, health, housing, retirement and long-term care, as well as career preparation and continuing education. The 2006 amendments will expand gerontology training for minority students; multigenerational activities, and civic engagement activities.

Title V authorized the community service employment program for older Americans known as the Senior Community Service Employment or SCSEP--to promote part-time opportunities in community service for unemployed, low-income persons who are 55 years or older and who have poor employment prospects. It is administered by the Department of Labor. The 2006 amendments establish 4-year grant cycles for the competitive program and permit poor performing grantees to be terminated from the program based on performance measures and establishes a 3 year limit for participating in subsidized employment with a 20-percent waiver for difficult to place individuals.

Title VI authorized funds for Supportive and nutrition services for older Native Americans. The 2006 amendments will increase the funding levels for this program.

Title VII authorized the long-term care ombudsman program and elder abuse, neglect and exploitation prevention programs. The 2006 amendments will enhance the elder abuse prevention activities by awarding grants to States and Indian tribes to enable them to strengthen long-term care and provide assistance for elder justice and elder abuse prevention programs. It will create grants for prevention, detection, assessment, treatment of, intervention in, investigation of, and response to elder abuse; safe havens demonstrations for older individuals; volunteer programs; multidisciplinary activities; elder fatality and serious injury review teams; programs for underserved populations; incentives for longterm care facilities to train and retain employees; and other collaborative and innovative approaches. Further, it will initiate a new incidence and prevalence study and a data collection process.

The proportion of the population aged 60 and over will increase dramatically over the next 30 years as more than 78 million baby boomers approach retirement. It is essential that in the coming years Congress and the Federal Government take a leadership role in assisting the states in addressing the needs of older Americans. The bill we offer today will ensure that our Nation's older Americans are healthy, fed, housed, able to get where they need to go and safe from abuse and scams. The No. 1 resolution of the 2005 White House Conference on Aging called upon Congress to reauthorize the Older Americans Act during the 109th Congress. I am pleased that the Senate and the House are well on the way to accomplis1ing this goal on behalf of one of our Nation's greatest resources--our older Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator DeWine, Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski in introducing the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006.

The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 is the primary source for the delivery of social and nutrition services for older individuals. Enacted in 1965, the act's programs include supportive services, congregate and home-delivered nutrition services, community service employment, the long-term care ombudsman program, and services to prevent the abuse, neglect and exploitation of older individuals. The act also provides grants to Native Americans and research, training, and demonstration activities.

The 2000 amendments to the act authorized the National Family Caregiver Support Program; allowed State agencies on aging to impose cost-sharing for certain supportive services for older persons; revised the State funding formulas; and required the Department of Labor to establish performance measures for the community service employment program.

Title I of the Older Americans Act set broad social policy objective to improve the lives of all older Americans. It recognized the need for an adequate income in retirement, and the importance of physical and mental health, employment in community services for older individuals and long-term care services.

Title II established the Administration on Aging, AOA, within the Department of Health and Human Services to be the primary Federal advocate for older individuals and to administer the provisions of the Older Americans Act. It also established the National Eldercare Locator Service to provide nationwide information with regard to resources for older individuals; the National Long-term Care Ombudsman Resource Center; the National Center on Elder Abuse; the National Aging Information Center; and the Pension Counseling and Information Program. The 2006 amendments will establish an Office of Elder Abuse Prevention and Services to develop a long-term plan and national response to elder abuse prevention, detection, treatment, and intervention. Further, the 2006 amendments strengthen the leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services through an interagency coordinating committee to guide policy and program development across the Federal Government with respect to aging and demographic changes.

Title III authorized grants to State and area agencies on aging to act as

advocates on behalf of older individuals. Title III services are targeted to those with the greatest economic and social need, particularly low-income minority persons and older persons residing in rural communities. It funds supportive services, congregate and home- delivered meals, transportation, home care, adult day care, information assistance, and legal assistance. The 2006 amendments will expand the Caregiver Support Program to permit the use of volunteers to enhance services and increase program authorization levels. In addition, the bill contains a new demonstration project that promises to lead to changes in our long-term care delivery system, leading to consumer driven choices.

Title IV authorized grants for training, research, and demonstration projects in the field of aging. This title supports a wide range of projects including those related to income, health, housing, retirement and long-term care, as well as career preparation and continuing education. The 2006 amendments will expand gerontology training for minority students; multigenerational activities, and civic engagement activities.

Title V authorized the community service employment program for older Americans known as the Senior Community Service Employment or SCSEP--to promote part-time opportunities in community service for unemployed, low-income persons who are 55 years or older and who have poor employment prospects. It is administered by the Department of Labor. The 2006 amendments establish 4-year grant cycles for the competitive program and permit poor performing grantees to be terminated from the program based on performance measures and establishes a 3 year limit for participating in subsidized employment with a 20-percent waiver for difficult to place individuals.

Title VI authorized funds for Supportive and nutrition services for older Native Americans. The 2006 amendments will increase the funding levels for this program.

Title VII authorized the long-term care ombudsman program and elder abuse, neglect and exploitation prevention programs. The 2006 amendments will enhance the elder abuse prevention activities by awarding grants to States and Indian tribes to enable them to strengthen long-term care and provide assistance for elder justice and elder abuse prevention programs. It will create grants for prevention, detection, assessment, treatment of, intervention in, investigation of, and response to elder abuse; safe havens demonstrations for older individuals; volunteer programs; multidisciplinary activities; elder fatality and serious injury review teams; programs for underserved populations; incentives for longterm care facilities to train and retain employees; and other collaborative and innovative approaches. Further, it will initiate a new incidence and prevalence study and a data collection process.

The proportion of the population aged 60 and over will increase dramatically over the next 30 years as more than 78 million baby boomers approach retirement. It is essential that in the coming years Congress and the Federal Government take a leadership role in assisting the states in addressing the needs of older Americans. The bill we offer today will ensure that our Nation's older Americans are healthy, fed, housed, able to get where they need to go and safe from abuse and scams. The No. 1 resolution of the 2005 White House Conference on Aging called upon Congress to reauthorize the Older Americans Act during the 109th Congress. I am pleased that the Senate and the House are well on the way to accomplis1ing this goal on behalf of one of our Nation's greatest resources--our older Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's additional comments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

I have listened patiently through 4 hours yesterday and quite a bit of time this morning. There are some things that need to be said.

I appreciate the comments from our side of the aisle and from everybody who has gone before me. I particularly appreciate the comments of the Senator from Georgia because some of those things have been grating on us a little bit as we have listened to what has been said. We have seen the charts which show that small businesses in this country are in favor of that kind of a tax increase.

I spoke to the Federation of Independent Businesses yesterday morning. They do the most complete job of surveying their members than any association that I know of. They do not back anything unless there is a strong consensus by their members.

They are opposed, by their vote, to the minimum wage increase that Senator Kennedy is suggesting.

I do not know where they find that 86 percent. But I have seen surveys before that are able to manufacture the kinds of numbers that people want to have.

From the manufacturing members, I suggest that it sounds reasonable to people.

I saw a chart over here last night that showed the average CEO in America is making $11.8 million compared to what a minimum wage person is making.

That is an average CEO. What do you suppose the good ones are making? Eleven million eight hundred thousand dollars a year for the average CEO in this country? I think that must be the average CEO in the top 100 companies in the world. But that is apples and oranges when you are talking about the minimum wage.

We have heard some pretty big numbers about how many people are in poverty and under the minimum wage.

The purpose is to take the 1.9 million people who are at the minimum wage and get them higher wages. We all agree on that. What we don't agree on is how to do that.

The Senator from Massachusetts earlier today said minimum wage jobs don't get you out of poverty; that they keep you in poverty.

That was his quote this morning. I absolutely agree with that. What we need to do is get higher skills in this country. We need to reduce the number of dropouts in this country. It is dropouts who are working at the minimum wage. It is people who have made some choices that put them in a position where they have to take the lower paying jobs. We need to change that.

When I first came to Washington, welfare reform was going into effect. The newspapers were full of stories that on the day that went into effect, people were going to drop through the cracks. It was going to be this tragedy for American people. After it happened, there were not many stories on that. That is because the tragedies did not happen. People improved their lot in life with jobs.

I happened to be in an ice cream shop where they shared the tables fairly closely. This was fine, but it made it impossible for me not to hear the conversation at the table abutted up to my table. It was a woman and her husband talking to a sister who had a child with her. She was talking about the change that welfare reform had made in her life because she had gotten some additional training, she had gotten a good job, and she was so pleased with her job she was going to shift some hours so she could be at work when her sister was in training. She would take care of that child who was sitting there so her sister could have the same kind of benefit she had.

That is the way we change America. We get people better jobs. We take care of things so people can get better training.

Better training reminds me of the Workforce Investment Act. I have been trying to get the Workforce Investment Act through this process for 3 years now. That is a bill that would train 900,000 people a year to higher paying jobs. That is what we want, higher paying jobs. Do you think we have been able to get it through the process? No. For 2 years we were not able to get a conference committee. Now we are being blocked from having it brought to the Senate for debate. That would solve a lot of the problems.

We talk about the difference in wages between men and women. We had a great hearing in our Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I liked one of the people whom Senator Kennedy selected to give testimony, a lady from New York City. She was talking about the value of taking nontraditional jobs. She happened to be a stone mason, a person who works with bricks, rock, and marble. She makes things beautiful. She started with basic construction, and she worked her way up to where she was hanging marble on skyscrapers. She shared with us the progression in pay she had gotten. She is making more than I am. She made that progression rather rapidly, but she had to take a job that was nontraditional for women. She wears a hard hat and safety toes and goes up skyscrapers. You do not necessarily have to do that to make more money.

I always point out in Wyoming we have a shortage of people to work. That shortage is providing power for this country. Over a third of the coal that is mined in this country is mined in Campbell County, WY, which is where Gillette is. That is where I am from. Their problem now is getting people to drive haul trucks. They are big trucks. Two of them would not fit in this Chamber. They would be as high as the ceiling. They are big equipment. They have power steering, power brakes, enclosed cabs with air conditioning. They drive almost like a car. If a person can drive and pass a drug test, they can start at $60,000 a year and get the training to work on that truck. That is way above minimum wage, folks. That is $60,000 a year. If they want to put in some overtime--they would not be allowed flextime at the present time--they can make more than that.

We need to have people look at some of the nontraditional jobs and look at some of the other areas of the country. If they are in an area with a lot of people and not many jobs, they will have lower paying jobs. We need to get more job training. We need to have the people be where the good-paying jobs are. They would find pretty good quality of life, too.

I need to correct a couple of other things. First of all, we make some of these charts sound as if everyone working at minimum wage is a single mom with lots of kids. That does not fit with the statistics. There are 1.9 million people at the minimum wage. Fully 85 percent of the minimum wage earners live with their parents--I would think most of the parents hope that means they are teenagers--or they have a working spouse or are living alone without children. So 41 percent live with a parent or relative, 23 percent are single or are the sole breadwinner in a household with no children, and 21 percent live with another wage earner. A lot of those are teenagers. Yes, they are in poverty if that is all they are making.

I have had some minimum wage jobs. I don't know how many in this Chamber have had minimum wage jobs. I worked in the summers and while I was going to college, even when I was considerably younger than that. One of the things I discovered was if I was interested in what I was doing and I learned as much as I could about it, I was not at the minimum wage very long. I got a promotion. I got more pay. But of course the reason I got more pay is because I was able to do more things. I was more skilled. Minimum wage equals minimum skills.

McDonald's takes a real rap for starting people at minimum wage, and I have a friend named Jack Preiss who owns several McDonald's. He pointed out to me he has three of his employees who started at minimum wage who now own 20 McDonald's.

That is the way we want America to work. We do not want minimum wage jobs that don't get you out of poverty. They keep you in poverty. Yes, we want higher skills, better jobs, and the opportunity for people to have higher wages. If people are locked into the fact they are going to have a minimum wage job their whole life, they are going to have a minimum wage job their whole life. But there are options. There are opportunities out there. And there could be more if we could do the Workforce Investment Act.

Flextime is one of six provisions in this bill that make a difference to small business.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 additional minutes.

The Senator from Massachusetts has said: Let's have an up-or-down vote. There are a lot of things around here that we talk about having an up-or-down vote on. We have not been able to have up-or-down votes, and it is always because there are some other amendments that might make the bill better. Sometimes they are even germane to the bill we are talking about.

The one we are talking about, the amendment we are putting this on now is Department of Defense. Yes, you can make some arguments about how this is defense related, I guess, but what we would normally do, if we were serious on an issue such as this, is bring it up as a separate issue and allow amendments to it. But that is not going to happen because there are a few things in my bill that the other side of the aisle would not like to have.

One of those is flextime. They show that chart where the person could make 50 hours this one week and get overtime and then make 30 hours in the next week. That is not how the real world works either. They would earn 40 hours in one week, which would not be overtime, and 40 hours in the next week, which would not be overtime. That is still the same 80 hours. With the agreement of the person asking for the flextime, they could put the 50 hours in one week, the 30 hours in the other week, have the extra day to do whatever they want with their kids.

If flextime is a bad idea, why did we let the Federal employees do it? The problem in my State is with the person who works for a private industry in Wyoming who is married to someone who works for the Federal Government because the Federal Government lets them do the flextime that the Senator from Massachusetts says steals overtime. If it stole overtime, does anyone think our Federal employees would be interested in it? No; they have other values.

When we did flextime for the Federal Government, Senator Kennedy voted to ensure that the Federal employees would have access to flextime, to have the scheduling options necessary to balance work and family life. Senator Kennedy, along with 11 other Democrats, cosponsored the Nickles bill that extended flextime and comp time to State and local employees. If it is a bad idea, why would they do it for Federal employees and State and local employees? And why don't we do it for the private employees? The argument is, nasty employers would never let them have the time.

That is a terrible rap for business. Small business understands the needs of their people better than big business because they work with them every day, they go to church with them every weekend, they are in civic organizations with them, their kids go to the same schools, and they are the ones who have to deliver the bad news that they are not going to be allowed to do that flextime, and they cannot afford to do it a different way.

Sometimes the employees in small business make more than the employers in small business. Those are some of the CEOs whom I am worried about, the ones who have to wake up in the middle of the night and say, How am I going to make payroll this week? I would like to be paying my people more, but I don't know how I am going to pay them at all.

That is a reality in small business. I know small businessmen across the country who are hearing me say that are saying: He's got it. He understands our problem. What can you do to help us?

So we put together some provisions that in a normal situation we would be able to debate one of those at a time and decide on some of them and reject some of them. That is how it ought to work. But it is not just as simple as saying we can get everybody and all the kids out of poverty if we were just to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would quote the Senator from Massachusetts again who said: Minimum wage jobs don't get you out of poverty, they keep you in poverty. Until we get a Workforce Investment Act passed around here that increases job training for 900,000 people a year so they can get higher-skilled jobs so they can get the jobs of the future, not the jobs of the past, we are going to have problems with the minimum wage and poverty.

We need to be able to give people more choices, not less choices. There is a definite difference in philosophy. We think that free enterprise can work and that it is working and that it does work, and also that States rights work. States are changing the minimum wage to match the economy of their State. Although, if they have really good jobs, they will attract people, I hope. We are having a little problem attracting people to Wyoming, and those are not for the minimum wage jobs, those are for outstanding jobs.

So people need to think a little bit about more training or moving a little bit to get better jobs and get out of the minimum wage rut that will cause a spiral. As we increase the minimum wage, we also cause an upward spiral that eliminates the value of that minimum wage.

I ask you to vote against the Kennedy amendment and to vote for my amendment.

Something that has been overlooked is my amendment includes a $1.10 increase in the minimum wage over 18 months.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a letter dated June 13, 2006, to Senator Kennedy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and this amendment be sent to the desk.

No, Mr. President. Senator Kennedy filed an amendment that dealt with the minimum wage. I actually won't send mine to the desk right now, but I would like to comment on that right now.

That is correct. Of course, I am going to ask that he withdraw that amendment and I do not propose my amendment because they don't have to do with the Department of Defense authorization.

The Senator withdraws his request to do that but requests the floor.

Mr. President, I know that some people who are following this debate might be wondering how the minimum wage relates to legislation that authorizes national security programs in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy for the next year, and that is certainly a valid question. The answer is: It doesn't.

The underlying legislation the Senate has been considering for over a week is of tremendous importance to our national security. The bill is bipartisan and was reported out of committee unanimously. As those of us who chair committees know, it isn't easy to obtain unanimous bipartisan support for legislation. Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin worked hard to achieve this feat because the subject of the bill is so critically important. Now I believe we owe it to them, as well as to our constituents and every American, to give this national security legislation swift consideration so that it can become law.

The amendment offered by Senator Kennedy has the opposite effect. It will slow this bill down because it is an entirely different subject than the underlying bill. It will take up valuable debate time that should be spent on the bill's national security provisions. Should it be adopted, the Kennedy amendment would become a thorny issue for the conference committee, and that will further slow down the bill's enactment.

Even more frustrating, the issue Senator Kennedy is raising has been considered and voted on by the Senate four times already in this Congress. We voted on the majority and minority plans to raise the minimum wage twice. We voted on the two of them in March, and we voted on them in November. Now, both times, no proposal succeeded.

Amendments offered by the Senate must comply with certain budget rules which, as a member of the Budget Committee, I fully support. Amendments that constitute an unfunded mandate are subject to a point of order which can only be waived with a vote of 60 Senators. Not 1 of the 4 minimum wage amendments has received 60 votes in the Senate this Congress. Yet here we are again, facing the same situation, using up time on the Defense bill. The outcome is likely to be the same as it was the last four times we voted. Knowing this, I find it difficult to understand why those on the other side of the aisle want to bring it up again on this critically important national security bill.

Let us not misuse the time we should be spending debating our national security priorities for the next year by repeating votes that already occurred four times in this Congress. Instead, let's focus on how we should prepare for the many threats we face as a nation. The good men and women who work for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy need our authorization and our guidance to move forward with their activities that keep us safe. We have always done it before we do the appropriations on those budgets. We should not let them down. We should not let the American people down.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to divert this debate on to an entirely unrelated matter, the outcome of which is clearly determinable. So I urge my colleague, Senator Kennedy, to withdraw his amendment. I would add that if he does not, I am plenty willing to have the debate again. We want to have the American public making as much money as possible.

I would rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy that would increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 over 26 months, which amounts to a 41-percent increase. My amendment would raise the minimum wage by $1.10 in two 55-cent steps over 18 months. But, more important than the numbers, only my amendment recognizes the enormous burdens a mandate such as this would place on the backs of America's small businesses.

The Senator from Massachusetts has previously referred to the economic effect of the minimum wage proposal as a drop in the bucket in the national payroll. Comments such as this are

precisely why small business owners across the Nation believe that Washington, DC, politicians do not understand their needs. We must always bear in mind that these are the people who create jobs that provide an increasing percentage of employment for all workers, including those entering the workforce for the first time and those who most need to acquire job skills. Those businesses train people with no skills. We are not talking minimum wage; we are talking minimum skills. And a lot of the small businesses that employ people at a minimum wage hire them at a minimum wage with no skills. As they get skills, which in many of those businesses occur in the first month they are hired, they go above the minimum wage to other levels, and as quickly as they learn other skills, they get paid more money or they go elsewhere, which is another option.

It is particularly offensive to those employers doing that training to suggest that a 41-percent increase in their labor costs amounts to a drop in the bucket. A 41-percent increase in labor costs forces a small businessperson to face difficult choices such as whether to increase prices, which they usually can't do or face a potential loss of customers because they raise the price, or whether to reduce spending on health insurance coverage or other benefits for their employees or, the worst of all possibilities, to terminate employees. These choices are far more significant than a drop in the bucket.

Apart from its failure to mitigate the cost of this mandate for small businesses, Senator Kennedy's amendment also fails to address the root of the problem for our lowest paid workers. Congress, by simply imposing an artificial wage increase, will not meaningfully address the real issue of the lowest paid workers. Regardless of the size of any wage increase Congress might impose, the reality is that yesterday's lowest paid worker, assuming he or she still has any job, will continue to be tomorrow's lowest paid worker as well. There is a spiral effect to these increases when we do them because everybody all up the chain has to have an increase to stay ahead of those with no skills. There are even union agreements that are tied to raises in the minimum wage, which is probably a bigger reason we debate the minimum wage on such a frequent basis around here.

But if everybody gets a raise, something has to happen to cover the cost of that raise. As I mentioned, you either eliminate employees so that you are increasing productivity to handle the same thing or you are raising the price. If you raise the price, you create inflation. If you create inflation, what they were able to buy for minimum wage today they can't afford for tomorrow's minimum wage because the price went up. So a false economy of just demanding by Congress that everybody do this really doesn't affect the economy the way we think it will. The way that you do that is advancement on the job and earned wage growth. Earned wage growth cannot be legislated. We do a disservice to all concerned, most especially the chronic low-wage worker, to suggest that a Federal wage mandate is the answer.

What we need to focus on is not an artificially imposed number but the acquisition and improvement of job and job-related skills. In this context we should recognize that only 68 percent of the students entering the ninth grade 4 years ago--68 percent of the students entering the ninth grade 4 years ago are expected to graduate this year. Do you know what kind of a job you get if you don't graduate from high school? Well, 68 percent of the kids who entered 4 years ago--not all of them--are going to graduate. For minority students this number hovers around 50 percent. In addition, we continue to experience a dropout rate of 11 percent a year. These noncompletion and dropout rates and the poor earning capacity that comes with them cannot be fixed by a Federal minimum wage policy.

I was in a retail store the other day. I noticed some of the skills have deteriorated to the point where the person at the cash register can't figure out the dollars themselves. I remember when cash registers in stores didn't tell you how much change you had to give the person. You had to figure it out, and kids and adults did that. But there are errors with that, so modern machines took up the disadvantage that was caused by that and we now have cash registers that figure the change for you.

But watch out if you ever change the way you give them the money after they figured it on the computer cash register.

Have you ever had a bill for $10.81 and you gave the clerk $11 and then you gave them a penny? That is no skills, if they can't figure out they owe you the 20 cents. No skills. That is what the retailers out there are training people on--basic, rudimentary things for having a job. We don't fix those by legislating.

If we are going to meaningfully address the issue of low-wage workers we have to acknowledge that you do not do that by simply passing a wage law. If that were the case, we could pass a law that made the minimum wage $20 or $50 or $100 an hour. It is just not that simple. In my own State of Wyoming, Governor Freudenthal, a Democrat, this year, in speaking about legislation to raise the minimum wage from the current $5.15, noted that the real question is how do you enable a worker to become more qualified and thereby able to earn a higher wage? He noted:

How do you make the individual more valuable in the

marketplace and demand a higher wage? It's not simply how do

you pass a law.

As I mentioned, the Governor of Wyoming is a Democrat, one who understands the reality of this issue in the workplace and the job market. Low wages may be the effect; low job skills are the cause. Raising the minimum wage does absolutely nothing to enhance job skills for low-wage workers. In fact, to the extent it makes entry into the workforce more difficult, and increases low-skilled unemployment, as a minimum wage hike without economic relief for small business will unquestionably do, it will have precisely the opposite effect.

If we are able to approach this debate in a candid and constructive way, we need to acknowledge certain basic principles of economics. First of all, wages do not cause sales. Sales are needed to produce revenue. And wages don't cause revenue. Revenue drives wages.

Wages can cause productivity, but the productivity has to come first to be able to afford the wages. Wages have to be paid for.

Skills, however, operate differently than wages do. Skills do create sales. Sales do produce revenue. Skills do create productivity. And here is the most important part--skills get compensated with higher wages or else the employee goes somewhere else to get true higher wages to compensate for their increased skills. There is a relationship between skill and how much you make. Dropouts will not make as much as college graduates. Dropouts will not make as much as someone who has been to a technical school. Dropouts will have minimum skills.

Some people who finish school have minimum skills. I know my dad, once, when he was interviewing a person, said the person told him he had 5 years' experience. My dad, after questioning him, said: Unfortunately, he had 1 month of experience 60 times.

Wage increases without increased sales or higher productivity, which are a result of more skills, have to be paid for with higher prices. Higher prices wipe out wage increases. Better skills, not artificial wage increases, produce true net gains in income.

We also need to focus on the goal that the minimum wage should be for all workers and what it is for most, which is a starting point in an individual's lifelong working career if they are not skilled.

Let me say that again. We need to focus on the goal that minimum wage should be for workers who need a starting point in an individual's lifelong working career because they are not skilled. If viewed as a starting point, it is clear the focus needs to be far less on where an individual begins in his or her work career and far more on how an individual can progress--get jobs that have the potential for increase, get jobs that teach skills. They are available.

I always have to mention this. Right now in Wyoming, which is the least populated State in the Nation, we have a huge shortage of workers. There is a huge shortage of workers. Are these good jobs? Yes, they are good jobs.

They are in the coal mines. We ship a third of the Nation's coal out of my county. It is clean coal and it is open-pit mining. We use huge trucks. You could only fit two trucks in this whole room and that would be a pretty tight squeeze. The top of it would probably touch the top of the roof. They are big trucks. We are having trouble getting drivers for the trucks.

The only requirement for being a driver on one of these trucks is to be able to drive and have a clean drug record--be able to pass a drug test. When you drive one of these trucks, once you get up to elevation and get in the driver's chair, there are antivibration seats, power steering, air-conditioned cabs. That great big vehicle is easy to drive.

What do you get paid for driving it? The starting salary is about $60,000, and they train you, provided you have this clean drug record-- $60,000 a year. We are having trouble getting people to come to Wyoming to work for $60,000 a year. So it isn't always minimum wage that drives these things. Skills are important, but you can even get the skills if you look for the jobs that pay well.

They may be nontraditional jobs. We have a lot of women who are driving coal haul trucks. They can do it very capably and probably with fewer accidents than the men.

The truth is, real wage growth happens every day. It is not the function of Government to mandate it. It is the direct result of an individual becoming more skilled and therefore more valuable to his or her employer. As a former small business owner, I know these entry- level jobs are a gateway to the workforce and an opportunity for workers to begin to acquire the skills and experience they need. These entry-level jobs can open the door for better jobs and better lives for low-skilled workers--if we give them the tools they need to succeed.

We have a great example in Cheyenne, WY. Workers entering the job market were given the tools and the opportunity to reach the American dream. We have a man there named Mr. Jack Preiss, and he is the owner of eight McDonald's in Wyoming. We often talk about McDonald's and minimum wage.

I want to tell you he has had three employees who started working at McDonald's at minimum wage who now own a total of 20 McDonald's restaurants. They own them. This type of wage progression and success should be the norm for workers across the country. However, there are a small percentage of workers who have not acquired the necessary work- based skills and for whom stagnation at the lower tier wage is a longer term proposition. The answer for these workers, however, is not to simply raise the lower wage rung. Rather, these individuals have to acquire the training, experience, and skills that will lead to meaningful and lasting wage growth. Our policies ought to be directed at that end.

We have to equip our workers with the skills they need to compete in a technology-driven global economy. It is estimated that 60 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess.

It is also estimated that graduating students will likely change careers 14 times in their lives. You didn't hear me say change jobs 14 times in their lives. That is easy. I said change careers 14 times in their lives.

Here is the important part of that statistic. The world is changing so fast that 10 of those jobs don't even exist today. They are going to have 14 career changes, 10 of which are for jobs that don't even exist today. We have to do a better job of educating and training our youth to be able to take the kind of jobs we are going to have.

We need a system in place that can support a lifetime of education, training, and retraining of our workers. The end result will be the attainment of skills that will provide meaningful wage growth. As legislators, our efforts are better focused on ensuring that the tools and opportunities for training and enhancing skills over a worker's lifetime are available and fully utilized--more available and fully utilized than we are in imposing an artificial wage increase that fails to address the real issues and in the process does more harm than good. Skills and experience, not an artificial wage hike, will lead to lasting wage security for American workers.

As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, one of my priorities is reauthorizing and improving the Nation's job training system that was created by the Workforce Investment Act. This law would help provide American workers with the skills they will need, new skills to compete in a global economy. Those are ones that will lead to real, not artificial wage increases.

Last Congress--this is 3 years ago--I was denied the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences with the House on this important bill by some of the very people who are proposing this minimum wage increase. This Congress, this important bill has faced the same obstruction. In November of last year we reported this legislation out of the HELP Committee by unanimous voice vote. Yet it continues to languish, unavailable for debate on the floor of this Congress, with no progress being made and little hope for action in this Congress if such obstruction continues. This bill would train an estimated 900,000 people a year to higher skilled jobs--900,000 people a year could be on a better career path, could have more skills. That would be a real improvement for chronic low-wage workers.

It makes little sense to me that some of the same people who denied the opportunity in the last Congress to enact real improvement now think a redetermination of the lowest wage will magically change everyone's life. If we truly want to change and improve the lives of our lowest paid workers, we must pass the Workforce Investment Act.

Let's be clear about what a minimum wage hike will and will not do. First, we must realize that large increases in the minimum wage will hurt low-income, low-skilled individuals. Mandated hikes in the minimum wage do not cure poverty, and they clearly do not create jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has said:

Most economists would agree that an increase in the minimum

wage rate would cause firms to employ fewer low-wage workers

or employ them for fewer hours.

That is a CBO estimate from October 18, 1999.

What every student who has ever taken an economics course knows is that if you increase the cost of something--in this case a minimum wage job--you decrease the demand for those jobs. Misleading political rhetoric cannot change the basic principle of supply and demand. The majority of economists continue to affirm the job-killing nature of the mandated wage increases. A recent poll concluded that 77 percent or nearly 17,000 economists believe that a minimum wage hike causes job loss.

It is kind of a spiral that we get into.

We simply cannot assume that a business that employs 50 minimum wage workers before the wage increase is enacted will still employ 50 minimum wage workers, whether the business is in Washington, Wyoming, or Massachusetts. Employers can't absorb an increase in their cost without a corresponding decrease in the number of jobs or benefits they can provide workers. We know there are losers when we raise the minimum wage. But who are the individuals who will benefit?

Minimum wage earners who support a family solely based on the wage are actually pretty few and far between. Fully 85 percent of the minimum wage earners live with their parents, have a working spouse, or are living alone without children.

Of the minimum wage earners, 41 percent live with a parent or relative, 23 percent are single or the sole breadwinner of the household with no children, and 21 percent live with another wage earner.

All are low-skilled workers or brandnew employees. In a shoe store you might have the lowest-skilled people unpacking the shoes. By the time they can check inventory and correctly put it on the shelf so they can find the size when the customers come in, they get a raise. If they can actually wait on a customer--that is kind of the goal in most businesses, to be able to wait on a customer--that is another level of wage increase. The better they do waiting on customers--which is the important part in the business--the more they get paid.

Research shows that the poor targeting and other unintended consequences of the minimum wage make

it a terribly ineffective approach to reducing poverty in America--the intended purpose of the policy. In fact, two Stanford University economists concluded that a minimum wage increase is paid for by higher prices that hurt poor families the most.

A 2001 study conducted by Stanford University economists found that only one in four of the poorest 20 percent of families would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. The way to truly improve the wages and salaries of these American workers is through education and training--not an artificial wage increase.

With these realities in mind, I will offer an amendment, unless Senator Kennedy wishes to withdraw his amendment. We can go on with the Defense debate. There must be serious discussion on that possibility. So I will allow that to go on and make a few more comments.

But I am considering offering an amendment that recognizes the true cost of the minimum wage increase on American workers and businesses, and particularly small businesses.

My amendment includes a minimum wage increase of $1.10, and it also addresses other needs for reform and the needs of small businesses that create the most jobs in this country. Therefore, my amendment is protective of economic growth and job creation.

Let me turn to a brief review of the provisions that would be contained in my amendment. In doing so, we must bear in mind that small businesses continue to be the engine that drives our economy and the greatest single source of job creation. Any wage increase imposed on small businesses poses difficulties for that business owner and, more importantly, for his or her employees.

My amendment recognizes this reality and provides a necessary measure of relief for these small business employers.

My amendment would make the following changes that are critical, particularly for small business. The first one is updating the small business exemption.

Having owned a small business in Wyoming, I can speak from personal experience about how difficult any minimum wage increase is for small businesses at the low end of the scale level and job growth.

Small businesses generate 70 percent of new jobs. Since the negative impact of a minimum wage increase will affect small businesses most directly, we have proposed addressing the small business threshold which is set under current law at $.5 million. If the original small business threshold enacted in the 1960s--that is when we came up with this arbitrary number, in the 1960s--if it were to be adjusted for inflation, it would amount to over $.5 million.

The small business threshold was last adjusted 15 years ago. In those ensuing years since the national minimum wage rate has been hiked, the economy has undergone a dramatic change, and the way work is done in this country has changed forever.

The pending amendment raises that threshold for small business determination to $1 million to reflect these changes.

My amendment also incorporates bipartisan technical corrections that were originally proposed in 1990 by then Small Business Committee Chairman Dale Bumpers, Democrat from Arkansas, and cosponsored over the years by Senator Reid, now the Democratic leader, Senator Harkin, Senator Pryor, Senator Mikulski, Senator Baucus, Senator Kohl, and others. Those Senators can attest to the Department of Labor's disregard of the will of Congress and interpreted the existing small business threshold to have little or no meaning. The Labor Department would make a Federal case out of the most trivial paperwork infraction by the smallest small business because of what it interpreted as a loophole in the law.

Some would say that the 1989 bill to hike the minimum wage and the small business threshold was inartfully drafted and permitted this result. Others say the Department is misreading the clear language of the statute.

Regardless, the fact is that a threshold enacted by Congress is not providing the balance and fairness that was intended. This amendment corrects the problem by stating clearly that the wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to employees working for enterprises engaged in commerce or engaged in the production of goods for commerce. My amendment also applies those wage and hour worker safeguards to home-work situations.

Second, ensuring procedural fairness for small business: This next provision is just common sense and good government legislation.

Surely, we can all agree that small business owners--the individuals who do the most to drive our economy forward--deserve a break the first time they make an honest paperwork mistake when no one is hurt and the mistake was corrected.

Let me say that again.

Surely, we can all agree that small business owners-- the individuals who do the most to drive our economy forward--deserve a break the first time they make an honest paperwork mistake where no one is hurt and the mistake is corrected.

Small business owners told me over and over again how hard they try to comply with all the rules and regulations imposed on them, mostly by the Federal Government. As a former owner of small business myself, I know what they mean. Yes, for all that work, a government inspector can fine a small business owner for paperwork violations alone, even if the business has a completely spotless record and the employer immediately corrects the unintentional mistake. Even the best intentioned employer can get caught in the myriad of burdensome paperwork requirements imposed on them by the Federal Government. And I will even go so far as to say a lot of times the paperwork isn't clear, because I have filled out a lot of those documents.

To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, sometimes we use something for insurance that deals with health, and the questions can't be the same.

So there are a lot of possibilities unless you follow the manual very closely. And small businesses don't have time to do that because they are trying to make a living for themselves and their employees.

There are a lot of opportunities out there which the Federal Government gives them to make paperwork mistakes that really don't affect anybody. But if we have enough people working in the Federal bureaucracy to check and see if all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted, we can find some mistakes, particularly if that person only has to concentrate on one document. The small business owner has dozens that he has to comply with.

The owners of small businesses are not asking to be excused from any obligations or regulations, but they feel they deserve a break if they previously complied perfectly with the law. Small business men and women who are first-time violators of paperwork reduction deserve some protection.

The third part of the bill would provide regulatory relief for small businesses.

As any increase in the minimum wage places burdens on small employers, it is only fair to simultaneously address the ongoing problem of agencies not fully complying with the congressional directive contained in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act.

That is a mouthful.

Under the law, agencies are required to publish small entity compliance guidelines for those rules that require a regulatory flexibility analysis. Unfortunately, agencies have either ignored this requirement or when they tried to comply have not done so fully or carefully.

My amendment does this by including specific provisions that the Government Accountability Office has suggested to improve the clarity of the requirement.

The fourth thing it would do is remove the barriers to flexible time arrangements.

My amendment includes legislation that could have a monumental impact on the lives of thousands of working men and women and families in America.

This legislation would give employees greater flexibility in meeting and balancing the demands of their work and family.

We came up with an idea like this, and it is real important to pay attention to it. We stole it from the Federal

Government. The Federal Government imposes this on agencies. The Federal Government says you are going to give the employees flexibility.

The first time I ever heard of this was in Wyoming. Some people in Wyoming are married to people that work for the government, probably not nearly as strange as out here. Out here, I think a lot of people who work in government are married to people who work in government. But out there, a lot of people who are working in government are married to people who aren't working in government.

We give this benefit to government employees--being able to have a little flex in their time. But we prohibit it in the private sector. We say you cannot do this even though we let the government folks do this. There, it would be a bad idea for your employees. We don't want you to have any flexibility. We know both the Federal employee and the private employee would like to watch their kids play soccer. The private employee better have his soccer schedule done so he doesn't need any flextime. But the government worker ought to be able to take it whenever they feel like it and trade it around.

We give the Federal Government the kind of flex I am talking about in this bill. Particularly in a family where the private employee is married to a government employee, they do not understand why they cannot have the same right as the government employee. They can bank a few hours and have a little longer weekend the next weekend, all in the same pay period. Their spouse can do it. They can have a little longer weekend. They can go use the boat over the longer weekend, but for the one that works for private industry it would be illegal. You cannot do that.

Just try and explain that to a family. That is how I first found out about this problem. I had a mother who wanted to be able to do the same thing as her husband. Her husband worked for the State government. He could do it. He could bank hours. But if it is a private sector, no, that would be stealing overtime from people. Why would it be stealing overtime in the private sector when it is not stealing overtime in the government sector? I don't understand that.

You will hear more, if we debate these things, and if we decide we are going to impose it on the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy authorization. If we decide we are going to impose that, comments will be on this flextime provision. Most of it will be on this because it is kind of a red herring that you can throw up and say, We do not trust business. Yes, we trust government but we don't trust business. You will hear that as the main part of this debate.

That is why I have spent a little time concentrating on it here.

This legislation would give employees in the private sector flexibility like in the government sector in meeting and balancing the demands of work and family.

Whatever we do, remember that part--only asking for private business what we give to government employees. Let me give some of the latest statistics: 70 percent of employees do not think there is a healthy balance between their work and their personal life; 70 percent of employees say family is their most important priority.

The family time provision in my amendment addresses these concerns head on. It gives employees the option of flexing their schedule over a 2-week period. In other words, employees would have 10 flexible hours they can work in 1 week in order to have 10 hours off in the next week.

Flexible work arrangements have been available in the Federal Government for over two decades. Have we had any arguments about them? No, they have been a great idea. They have been accepted and desired and used. But don't let the private sector have that. Because it works in one place doesn't mean it might work in another place. Let's continue to discriminate against private business. That is what we are saying when we do not allow the flextime.

This program has been so successful that in 1994 President Clinton issued an Executive order extending it to parts of the Federal Government that had not yet benefited from the program. President Clinton said:

[The] broad use of flexible arrangements to enable Federal

employees to better balance their work and family

responsibilities can increase employee effectiveness and job

satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism.

It would allow the Federal employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities--that sounds good to me--and it can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism. That sounds pretty good, too.

Let's see now. We tried it for over two decades and decided to extend it to all Federal Government, so it has to be a good idea. Would we pass on a bad idea to the Federal Government? Would they stand for it if we did? No. So why can't we give it to the private sector? Why do we say: Private sector, you are just not as good as Government employees. You do not deserve the same breaks we give Government employees.

As I mentioned, this will be the bulk of the debate on this particular issue, the flextime part. It could have been a lot more inclusive. Actually, the Federal Government gets to do more than what I have stated, but we are definitely not going to allow that. We are putting this down to a very small minimum to see if we can get any movement on it at all.

As I said, we have voted on this before, and the answer is, Heck, no, we will not give the private sector that kind of a privilege. We don't care what the Federal Government gets to do, you can't treat the private sector decently. No, they didn't say that, I said that.

I could not agree more with what President Clinton said when he did his Executive order. I am saying now we need to extend this same privilege to the private sector workers. It would allow employees to better balance their work and family responsibilities, it can increase employee effectiveness and job satisfaction, while decreasing turnover rates and absenteeism. That was President Clinton talking about this kind of provision for the public sector. I am saying, if it is that great, we ought to do it for the private sector, too.

We know this legislation is not a total solution. We know there are many other provisions under the 65-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act that need our attention, but the flexible time provision is an important part of the solution. It gives employees a choice, the same choice Federal workers have.

The fifth part of this would extend the restaurant employee tip credit. A major employer of entry-level workers is the fast food service industry. Another part of it is the regular food service industry. The regular food service industry relies on what is known as the tip credit, which allows an employer to apply a portion of an employee's tip income against the employer's obligation to pay the minimum wage.

Currently, Federal law requires a cash wage of at least $2.13 an hour for tipped employees and allows an employer to take a tip credit of up to $3.02 of the current minimum wage. To protect tipped employees, current law provides that a tip credit cannot reduce an employee's wages below the required minimum wage. Employees report tips to their employers, ensuring an adequate amount of tips are earned.

Seven states--Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington--do not allow a tip credit; however, requiring raises for all hourly employees when States increase the minimum wage. The lack of a tip credit requires these employers to give raises to their most highly compensated employees, the tipped staff. If you are working in a nice restaurant, the tips will be more than the salary. Nontipped employees in these businesses are negatively impacted by the mandated flow of scarce labor dollars to the tipped position. In addition, employers are put at a competitive disadvantage with the colleagues in the rest of the country who can allocate employee compensation in a more equitable manner.

My amendment expands the tip credit to nontip credit States, consistent with the initial establishment of the credit under the Fair Labor Standards Act, anticipating the increase in minimum wage.

The sixth provision is small business tax relief. If we are going to impose greater burdens on small business, we should give them some tax relief at the same time. My amendment extends small business expensing by 1 year.

Simplify cash accounting methods. I am the only accountant in the Senate, so I probably ought to explain what cash accounting is. That could be a huge debate all by itself. It means that the business can actually use the dollars coming in as part of the accounting as opposed to anticipated dollars that would be coming in. It works off the actual cash flow rather than some of the accrual methods that we use. I will not go into that. Accounting is important, but it often puts people to sleep. It would simplify cash accounting methods and provide restaurant depreciation relief.

All of these tax provisions are fully offset in the bill. That means they are paid for. That means there is some way of covering the cost of them so that it isn't the general budget.

In total, the additional provisions in my amendment are intended to mitigate the small business impact of a $1.10 increase in the minimum wage so people can keep their jobs. I share the view of many of my colleagues that if we are going to impose such a mandate on the Federal level, we must do our best to soften the blow. This may be the best we can do today, but I entreat all of my colleagues to look at the true root of the problem for minimum wage workers. That is the acquisition of job-based skills: more skills, more money.

We all share the same goals, which is to help American workers find and keep good-paying jobs and to keep the best paying jobs in this country. Real job skills, not artificial wage levels, should be our focus. Education, training, and job experience are the solution for low-wage workers. We have to pass the Workforce Investment Act that will train those 900,000 people a year to higher skill jobs.

In terms of education and training, we need to move forward on that kind of meaningful legislation that will lead to increased wages and better jobs that we all want for our Nation's workers.

In terms of job experience, we must always remember that businesses, particularly small businesses, create the jobs and provide the gateway to the working world for the vast majority of low-wage workers.

If we do not balance a minimum wage increase with economic relief for the small businesses, we will stifle job creation and shut the employment door on the very individuals we are trying to help.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and, if we continue to have the debate and I submit my amendment, to support my amendment. Both raise the minimum wage. One covers the cost of the minimum wage so that it would not drive down the number of people employed in this country.

We have been trying to increase employment. We want those people starting with minimum skills to work their way up the ladder to owning the business. That can happen in America. That can happen if we give them an incentive to learn to improve their skills and we don't impose false security of mandated higher wages that drive a spiral upward and eliminate jobs. Elimination of jobs is not the answer. Training people to higher skills so they can demand more money or go to work somewhere else is the answer.

If we are going to have this debate on the Department of Defense bill, I would be happy to submit my amendment to have it voted on, along with Senator Kennedy's amendment. We have done that before. We know what the results will be, I suspect. Both of them will be subject to a point of order. We usually agree not to go for the point of order but just order the vote and have the 60-vote threshold we have always had. We would be willing to do that, but a more appropriate time to debate this would be another time on another bill.

I yield the floor.

I would like to be able to do that. I don't have the numbers that I need to have. I appreciate the question, but I can't give you an answer yet.

In answer to the question, Mr. President, I can't tell how long it will take for the Joint Tax Committee to have the new numbers. But I can tell you, I didn't know that the Senator was going to offer his amendment until yesterday. The estimated revenue effects that we have are from the one that we did and voted on last year which shows over a 10-year period that all costs are covered with a slight surplus.

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk for the debate to be done in the morning.

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

Mr. President, it was just about 10 years ago that Bob Dole announced his retirement from the Senate. It was 1996 and the Nation was in the midst of an intense campaign for the Presidency. Bob Dole had decided to resign his Senate seat for the good of his home State of Kansas, his party, and his country. He knew he would have to focus all his energies on his campaign for President if he were to be successful, so he left Washington to answer another call to serve his country and provide a choice to the people of Kansas and the rest of the United States when the election was held in November of that year.

We really shouldn't have been surprised. Answering the call to serve his country was nothing new for Bob Dole and he was proud to be able to do it. Over his life he had been many things, a legislator, a decorated war hero, and a leader both inside and outside of the Senate. Through the years, Bob Dole had always answered the call to serve his country when he was needed, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so for many years to come.

It's no secret. Bob Dole has made it clear all his life. You want to know and understand him, you must first understand Russell, KS--the people who live there and the values and principles they hold dear. By coming to know the people of Russell, you understand the philosophy that Bob Dole has lived by his entire life. It's a philosophy ard work, and of always giving your best to whatever you choose to do. It is a reflection of his father's view of the world--``stewers versus doers.'' Needless to say, you will always find Bob Dole in the ``doers'' group.

That is why the story of Bob Dole's life is thoroughly intertwined with the story of Russell, KS. For it was when he was growing up in Russell that Bob Dole committed himself to the service of God, Country and family. They came to become his core values as he learned at a young age that there are things worth fighting for and that is what drew him to his service in the military.

Those who have chronicled those difficult years in our history have called him part of our greatest generation. Without any regard for himself, Bob Dole left everything he called dear behind to face a challenge as great as any generation had faced before. Pearl Harbor had been attacked and the whole world had taken up arms in a battle against an unspeakable evil that had been unleashed upon the world. World War II had called him to action and Bob Dole was a young man serving in the U.S. Army. He would never be the same again in mind or body. Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone would have returned home from the battlefields of Europe and the South Pacific and not have been changed forever.

As he bravely fought in the mountains of Italy, he was wounded in action, but still he fought on. Then, he was wounded again, this time far more seriously. The odds were against him, but he somehow made it through those vital first days. He then began what would be a lengthy recovery. He had a long stay in the hospital and despite the efforts of those who attended him, he had lost the use of an arm.

When he was released from the hospital, he returned home, and that special place of Russell, KS, again reached out to him with open arms and provided him with the support he needed to continue to recover from the wounds he had suffered on the battlefield. Once again, the bonds that tied him to the people of Russell and Kansas became stronger. Those bonds helped Bob Dole to regain his strength and begin to plan for the future.

Soon he heard the call to serve again. With the support of the people of his home town, he left to work for the people of Kansas in the State house and then in the U.S. Congress. His leadership skills were quite apparent and he compiled quite a record in the Senate. He progressed through the ranks and served his party as minority and then majority leader. Every day on the Senate floor, he took a leadership role on a wide variety of issues that he knew were important to the people of his home State. Through the years he worked to ensure that our American values we protected and preserved in all the proceedings of Congress. It was a remarkable record of service that continued until that day, ten years ago, when he resigned to pursue the call to carry the Republican banner for President.

Although that final political campaign of his was not successful, Bob Dole will always be remembered for a lifetime of service to the United States. He has received many honors for his service to the United States, and for being a part of a noble cause that the greatest generation took up for which so many fought and died. He never forgot those with whom he served or the needs of our Nation's veterans. In fact, it was those ties from so many years ago that led him to join the effort to construct a memorial for World War II to recognize those with whom he served--especially those who never returned. His leadership in that effort resulted in the dedication of a beautiful memorial that will stand forever in the shadows of the Lincolm Memorial and the Washington Monument on the Mall in our Nation's Capital.

Today, Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth continue to be a great team as she serves the people of North Carolina with the same care and attention that Bob Dole has always provided the people of Kansas.

Bob Dole has always said that his goal in life was to defend and serve the America he learned to love in Russell. I think the record shows that he succeeded in that effort and, in so doing, left his mark throughout much of the world as he fought in Europe to free the oppressed, and, in the Senate, for the principles and values he had learned to cherish as a young boy growing up in Russell, KS.

Mr. President, just a few days ago Senator Robert C. Byrd set a

very remarkable record. He is now the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate. The Senate, the legislative body that means so much to him, now honors him for his achievement and for the remarkable record of service that he has given to the United States. I appreciate having the opportunity to be a part of our recognition of our colleague and his commitment to public service and the people of his home State of West Virginia.

For almost 48 years now, Robert C. Byrd has carried the title of U.S. Senator. I think it is fair to say that no one has done so with a greater awareness of what it means to be a Senator and of all the institution of the Senate represents. He is truly our institutional memory and he is the master of the Senate's rules and procedures. No one knows better than he the precedents and prerogatives of the Senate, and no one is a better protector, promoter and defender of them than he is.

It is not just for the length of his service that Senator Byrd is being honored, however. It isn't so much the years he has served but the service he has provided to the people of the United States and his State of West Virginia that has earned him the accolades he has received and will continue to receive from his colleagues and his constituents.

Our celebration of this moment and all he has achieved is softened by the loss of his beloved wife Erma, his greatest friend and supporter, his companion through life and almost 69 years of marriage, who passed away recently. I am sure she is looking down on us all, proud and thrilled to see Senator Byrd's continued efforts to address the issues of importance to his beloved friends of West Virginia and to note his recognition for being their champion for so many years.

During my service in the Senate I have appreciated working with Senator Byrd on a variety of issues, most recently the Miner Safety Act. We were both there at the President's side as he took up his pen and signed the bill into law. As he did, he noted Senator Byrd's presence because he knew the bill was the result of Senator Byrd's heartfelt concern for the miners of his State, for their safety, and the security of their families.

I have no doubt that if we were to look up the words ``constituent service'' in any book it would immediately refer us to Senator Byrd's work in the Senate. He has been an active and effective advocate for the people of West Virginia and he has worked tirelessly and diligently to address their needs in the Congress.

Looking back, Senator Byrd's life reads like a Hollywood movie script. He graduated first in his high school class and married his high school sweetheart. He then spent 12 years saving the money he needed to start college.

Through the years that followed, he held a variety of jobs that gave him an understanding of the needs of the working people of his State. He also developed his talent for the fiddle, and soon became known for that as well. Before long he was a member of the State legislature and, not too long thereafter, he came to the Senate.

Here in the Senate, no one has shown a greater understanding of the history and meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the role it plays in shaping our values and our way of life as Americans. We both have a habit of carrying a copy in our pocket to remind us of our job here in the Senate and our responsibility as Senators to adhere to the provisions of the Constitution and all it says and requires us to do.

Whenever I think of Senator Byrd, the first thing that comes to mind is his incredible knowledge and understanding of world history and the American experience. He also has a profound and substantive mastery of the legacy of the written word. Whenever he takes to the floor to present his views on an issue he always has a ready reference to the precedents of the past, or the words of some great author who had written something appropriate to the moment.

Now, Senator Byrd, the great student of the history of our Nation and so much more, is himself a part of the great story of America and the traditions of the Senate. Every day he joins us here to deliberate on the issues before the Senate, he writes another chapter of his own life's story, a story that will be forever told and retold back in his home State, in the mountains and valleys of West Virginia, by the people who live there who will forever remember him and his legacy as their Senator--a legacy that will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the YouthBuild Transfer Act. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senators DeWine, Kerry, and Murray.

This bill transfers the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, the Department of Labor, DOL, as an amendment to the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. YouthBuild was enacted in 1992. It provides programs for young adults aged 16 to 24 to build or rehabilitate housing for homeless or low-income individuals in their communities while they study to earn their own high school diploma or GED. These youth gain occupational and technical skills while building their knowledge to help them become and remain productive participants in the workplace.

By transferring YouthBuild to DOL, the program will be more closely aligned with and benefit from collaboration with the larger workforce system at the State and local levels. It will continue to serve those young adults most in need of these services, and enable them to serve their communities by building affordable housing, and assists them in transforming their own lives and roles in society.

YouthBuild assists young adults not currently enrolled in school gain needed education, skills and knowledge. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the YouthBuild Transfer Act. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senators DeWine, Kerry, and Murray.

This bill transfers the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, the Department of Labor, DOL, as an amendment to the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. YouthBuild was enacted in 1992. It provides programs for young adults aged 16 to 24 to build or rehabilitate housing for homeless or low-income individuals in their communities while they study to earn their own high school diploma or GED. These youth gain occupational and technical skills while building their knowledge to help them become and remain productive participants in the workplace.

By transferring YouthBuild to DOL, the program will be more closely aligned with and benefit from collaboration with the larger workforce system at the State and local levels. It will continue to serve those young adults most in need of these services, and enable them to serve their communities by building affordable housing, and assists them in transforming their own lives and roles in society.

YouthBuild assists young adults not currently enrolled in school gain needed education, skills and knowledge. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the nomination of Richard M. Stickler to be the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. Mr. Stickler's nomination was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On March 8 of this year, the committee reported the nomination favorably out of the committee.

The Senate acted just 2 weeks ago on mine safety legislation which the House passed on Wednesday. It is anticipated that the President will sign this into law expeditiously. It is extremely important for the Mine Safety and Health Administration to have permanent leadership to implement this important mine safety law; therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Stickler's nomination today.

Despite decades of improving safety in our Nation's mines, this year we witnessed a series of tragic accidents in the coal mines of West Virginia and Kentucky. Those tragedies, in part, led to a thorough review of our mine safety laws. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I am privileged to chair, and the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, chaired by Senator Johnny Isakson, conducted extensive hearings and roundtables on the issues related to mine safety. We conducted an exhaustive review of the current Mine Safety and Health Act and met, at length, with representatives from the mining industry, labor, the professional safety community and State and Federal regulators, all in an effort to determine how we could act in a responsible and constructive way to improve workplace safety for our Nation's miners. The result of these collective efforts was the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act. The MINER Act is the first comprehensive

reform of U.S. mine safety laws in a generation. Following its introduction, the MINER Act was unanimously reported out of the HELP Committee and, almost immediately thereafter, was passed in this body by unanimous consent on May 24. The House passed this bill on Wednesday night. It is expected that the President will sign the bill into law very soon.

What has marked the MINER Act from the outset has been its bipartisan nature. The bill was drafted and moved through Congress as the direct result of continual efforts, on both sides, to reach across the aisle and reconcile differences. The passage of the MINER Act has shown that ensuring the safety of miners is not a partisan issue.

While amending the Mine Safety Act is an important step in meeting our responsibility to ensure miner safety, it is not the only step. We must not only give the Mine Safety and Health Administration the statutory tools it needs to get the job done; we must give it the permanent leadership it needs as well. This, too, should be an action in which partisanship should play no part. The Mine Safety and Health Administration has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed, Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health since November of 2004. This is too long under any circumstance but particularly in the wake of the recent coal mining tragedies, and on the eve of implementing the many changes that will result from enactment of the MINER Act.

We have the opportunity today to address this issue and to provide MSHA with the permanent leadership it needs by voting to confirm Richard M. Stickler, the President's nominee to head MSHA. Mr. Stickler is an experienced nominee whose leadership is needed during this critically important period. He is one of a very few individuals who has experience in mining at all levels from a miner to management to State regulator.

Born and raised in West Virginia the son and grandson of underground coal miners, Mr. Stickler has spent his entire 37-seven year career in the mining industry. He began his career as an underground miner and worked his way up to foreman, assistant superintendent, superintendent and manager. The bulk of this experience was not behind a desk but was underground, actually working in a mining environment. Because of this practical, day-to-day experience, he will be better able to understand and respond to the needs of today's underground coal miners and to provide seasoned leadership at MSHA.

While working as a miner, Mr. Stickler also attended Fairmont State College and earned a degree in engineering. In addition to his engineering background, he is certified as a mine safety professional by the International Society of Mine Safety Professionals.

Mr. Stickler also served as captain of a mine rescue team. As we have all seen over the course of the last several months, mine rescue teams are a critically important component of mine safety. The heroic miners who volunteer for this service endanger their own lives and donate significant amounts of time to ensure they are prepared to help their fellow miners. The MINER Act, which passed the Senate unanimously 2 weeks ago, mandates some changes to the mine rescue team system. Namely, we require mine rescue team members to have a higher level of training and experience and to be available more quickly when needed. I believe there could be no one better to implement these changes than a former mine rescue team captain.

In 1997, Richard Stickler left employment in the private sector to become director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, where he served for 6 years. He held that position at the time of the Quecreek mine accident in the summer of 2002. The accident drew national attention as nine miners were trapped underground for several days before being successfully rescued.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration is facing its most significant challenge in decades. It needs an experienced leader at its helm to implement the MINER Act and to continue the vital task of ensuring the safety and well-being of our Nation's miners. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Richard Stickler and vote in favor of his nomination.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional materials regarding the nomination.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act. Since coming to the Senate, I have continuously supported the repeal of this burdensome and unfair tax and am also a proud cosponsor of S. 420, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act and S. 988, the Jobs Protection and Estate Tax Reform Act.

I believe the death tax is fundamentally unfair because it constitutes another layer of taxation. After years of paying State and Federal income taxes and other taxes on property while trying to grow a business, the family must pay again at the time of death. This double taxation is unfair and should be eliminated.

Many small, family-owned businesses throughout my State of Wyoming cannot afford to pay the tax and are forced to close their doors. In addition, many landowners are forced to sell their property in order to afford paying this unfair tax and avoid passing on the costs to the next generation. Our country should encourage growth and investment, not force people to sell their assets. Families should not have to choose between paying taxes or operating their business just because a family member passed away. In Wyoming, we work hard, in pursuit of the American Dream, to create a better life for our children and grandchildren. Yet the death tax punishes this dream and the families who must pick up the pieces after losing a loved one.

The death tax not only hurts the families who are forced to pay the tax, it also hurts our overall economy. A Heritage Foundation study reports that repeal of this tax would create 482 jobs in Wyoming alone. While this number may not seem large to my colleagues from New York and California, 482 jobs would have a substantial economic impact for communities throughout my State. I believe we will see additional financial gains when businesses can continue their operations where previously they would have had to shut their doors.

The death tax forces families to spend thousands of dollars on estate planning. By forcing individuals and families to use vital financial resources on estate planning, money is being taken away from the family business or the family farm. When we eliminate this tax, jobs will be saved and money will be devoted to economic growth rather than extensive estate planning costs.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 8, which offers relief to America's hard-working families. Eliminating the death tax will bring fairness to our Tax Code as well as encourage continued growth in our economy.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. We must celebrate racial diversity in our Nation. Racial diversity defines the cultural norms and values that make America the ``melting pot'' that is so amazing. America's foundation is built upon many diverse races and cultures uniting to become one Nation, but while we can celebrate those diverse cultures, we must remember that we are all Americans and we must work to bridge gaps, not widen them.

Every day millions of Americans pledge their allegiance to our flag. They stand for the freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. One of the essential clauses of this pledge remains, ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' A source of our strength is our diversity, and still, despite our diversity, we are melded as one Nation, under God.

When I return to Wyoming, I often attend swearing in ceremonies. It is an honor to watch people become citizens of this great Nation. Swearing in ceremonies are moving experiences that I cherish. At a swearing in ceremony, people from every background and every nation come together to celebrate America. Every American should take the time to watch a swearing in ceremony because when they do, they will realize the privilege that comes with being an American citizen. They come in as citizens of India, China, Mexico, Germany, and many others, but they leave as Americans.

Although many citizens of this country practice and honor diverse traditions that are unique to their culture, one core similarity exists: we are all Americans. Racial diversity is important, but it should not be the rationale for the establishment of a separate sovereign government.

Wyoming is the home to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation. As part of the United States, these tribes have been recognized for nearly 150 years as sovereign nations. The Eastern Shoshone community was granted sovereignty during the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1863 before Wyoming became a State. Over the years, other Native American and Alaskan tribes gained sovereignty by meeting the criteria laid out in our laws. Native Hawaiians now seek sovereignty similar to that of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives through this legislation.

While I understand their desire to be granted sovereign immunity, the facts and circumstances surrounding Native Hawaiians are different. It does not make sense to waive or change the requirements that others had to meet.

Our Government has never created an Indian tribe. Sovereignty has only been granted to preexisting tribes and only in special, rare circumstances after statehood.

In order to be federally recognized, a tribe must meet several criteria. A tribe must prove it existed and operated as a tribe for the past century. Additionally, the tribe must distinguish itself as a separate and distinct community both geographically and culturally. Finally, the tribe must have a preexisting political structure that is clear. Native Hawaiians do not meet these criteria.

A distinct community does not exist according to the standards outlined in the proposed legislation. Within the United States and the State of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians live integrated among all races.

During the ``fall'' of Queen Liliuokalani, a ``Native Hawaiian'' government was not present. All races coexisted under the reign of the monarchy. Non-natives even held high positions within the government.

In 1898, at the time of annexation, there was no political effort to treat Native Hawaiians similar to Alaska Natives or Native American tribes. The same held true when 94 percent of Hawaiians voted to become a State in 1959. Ninety-four percent of Hawaiians voted to become Americans. In fact, at that time, advocates of Hawaiian statehood emphasized the cohesive diversity, the ``melting pot'' nature of Hawaii.

In addition, in 1998, the State of Hawaii's Supreme Court brief from the case of Rice v. Cayetano expressed the government's belief that, ``The Tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.''

If the proposed legislation passes, the progress we have made over the past century to improve racial equality regresses. Instead of uniting the country, we divide it, and some of the darkest hours of this Nation occurred when people were separated because of race. This legislation is based solely on the ideology of race.

We are all Americans, and as such, we need to be united. Although I respect the desire of Native Hawaiians to be a federally recognized sovereign nation, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose S. 147.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment. This important legislation, which was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Colorado, is simple and straightforward. It amends the U.S. Constitution to clearly define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

It is important to have this debate because the institution of marriage is under attack by some rogue local officials and activist judges who wish to push their agenda onto the majority of Americans. We need to have this debate to give the American people the opportunity to define marriage as they see fit. We need to remove the definition of marriage from the courts and return the decision making power to the American people.

Marriage has traditionally been considered the union between a man and a

woman. State common law practices have always assumed this to be the case. In addition to that, 45 States have some form of protection for the traditional marriage of a man and a woman. These States have done so with strong support from their citizens. Nineteen States have gone so far as to enact State constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Those amendments have passed with support averaging more than 71 percent.

What do these statistics make clear? The vast majority of Americans want the institution of marriage to be protected. They want to keep it as it has been: a union between one man and one woman.

How can we be certain that the American people support defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman? By using the ultimate democratic tool: the constitutional amendment.

Amending the Constitution is a rigorous task, and when our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they worked to ensure that any decision to alter it was a decision that would be made by the American people. In order to amend the Constitution, we must get a two-thirds vote in each body of Congress, which as my colleagues know, is no simple task. After that vote has taken place, the proposed amendment is sent to the States, where three-fourth's of State legislatures must vote to ratify the proposal. That means that 38 of the 50 States must support this amendment.

This is how the Framers of the Constitution intended our government to operate. A constitutional amendment places the final decision with the people, where it should be. Courts will no longer have the power to legislate the definition of marriage. Local officials will no longer have the ability to arbitrarily change the rules. The people will make the final call. Considering this amendment and sending it to the States for ratification is, in my opinion, the closest we can get to a truly democratic self-government.

Why is such an amendment necessary? Opponents of S.J. Res. 1 argue that this is a State issue and that our Nation is governed by the Defense of Marriage Act. According to the Defense of Marriage Act, no State can be forced to recognize the marriage laws of another State. Although this is true, the Defense of Marriage Act is not exempt from the Constitution, and therefore, is not exempt from the political rulings of activist judges.

The Defense of Marriage Act will not prevent an activist judge in State court from ignoring the will of that State's citizens if that judge forces them to redefine marriage. It does not prevent an activist judge in Federal court from ignoring the will of the people and forcing them to recognize a definition of marriage that is not their own.

The only way to ensure that the American people define marriage is to pass a constitutional amendment. If the definition of marriage is clearly laid out in the Constitution, neither an activist judge nor a rogue local official can ignore that definition and impose his or her will on the American people.

It is important to note that the Marriage Protection Amendment deals only with the institution of marriage. It does not alter a State's right to recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. It does not deal with a State's ability to confer benefits upon same-sex couples, and so State governments can continue to grant those benefits if they so choose.

Congress must enact the Marriage Protection Amendment to stave off the fragmentation that is sure to happen if different definitions of marriage exist. Passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary to the end judicial activism that has surrounded the marriage debate. It is necessary so that the American people can define marriage for themselves. And so, in closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.