Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 101, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 34, just received from the House and at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Thursday, April 7. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will be in a period of morning business throughout the day. A number of our colleagues will be traveling to Rome to attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II. We will return next week and begin consideration of the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill. Senators should expect a busy week with rollcall votes throughout. Senators should be aware that we will have a Monday evening vote at approximately 5:15, and we will lock that in tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. President, this amendment increases taxes by $24 billion and purports to give $7.5 billion to vocational education. The bill only controls the top discretionary number Government-wide. So the motion isn't enforceable and would likely be ignored by the committee of jurisdiction. The money could go over into some other account. There is no guarantee that the tax-and-spend amendment will result in one dollar of education.

The subcommittee chairman and the chairman for Education have looked at the budget, and there is money available for it. We know where to get it to make sure vocational education happens. That is why we put the Perkins through already.

I ask the Senate to reject it.

Mr. President, I would agree that this amendment does increase taxes by $5.4 billion. I could not agree that it will actually wind up adding money for education. It gives the nonbinding suggestion that it be directed toward various higher education programs, but it does not guarantee it. The Budget Resolution controls the top-line discretionary number government-wide. No such suggestion is enforceable. There is no guarantee that this tax-and-spend amendment will result in one new dollar for education, let alone the programs suggested by the amendment. I ask that my colleagues vote no.

Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Pennsylvania for making this arrangement so the flow of debate on this particular amendment can stay intact.

I do rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator Specter to increase discretionary spending by $2 billion. One of my favorite things--and I am sure everybody else's in this Chamber--is to give away money. You really don't get much opposition when you give away money. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where we do not have real money to give away--although, if we pass certain things, it turns into real money, and the deficit increases. We are making a very concentrated effort this year to hold down the deficit--not eliminate the deficit, but to hold it down. You have to do that a little bit at a time.

This concept is very similar to family budgeting. There are a lot of things a family would like to spend their money on, that they really feel they ought to spend their money on, but there is just not enough money to go around.

That is the case for virtually every amendment in this budget, there is a huge desire to be able to do some very specific things we know will make a difference. We have been doing that for a lot of years. That is part of the reason we are in the problem we are in right now.

This amendment increases discretionary funding for Function 500, which would include additional funding for education and job training-- my favorite area--and Function 550, which would include additional funding for health--my second favorite area. That comes under the jurisdiction of my committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It is a huge bite of the apple.

I am asked every once in awhile: How did that committee wind up with that much jurisdiction? I said it started out as just the Labor Committee, and then it picked up all the things that had to do with labor negotiations, the benefits that were negotiated, which include health benefits, job training, and pensions--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

We have since then made it a four-part equal stool so we can have a comprehensive review of these things. We have been doing that, and we have been making some tremendous headway.

My colleague from Pennsylvania has indicated that the additional $1.5 billion in funding for Function 550, included in his amendment, would be allocated to the National Institutes of Health. While I strongly support the basic biomedical research and other important activities at this agency, I agree with Chairman Gregg that now is not the time to specifically determine the amount of funding for NIH. That can be difficult. That can be done as part of the appropriations process, and Senator Specter is certainly in charge of the major determinations after Chairman Cochran makes the allocation. This is not the time for specifically determining that, although we get the impression that very specific determinations are made as part of the budget process.

That is partly the fault of the President. The President sends us a billion-page paper that shows how he would spend the money if he were spending the money. He doesn't have the authority to spend the money. He doesn't spend $1 of the money. This body and the one at the other end of the building have to do all of the appropriations, and we have set up a process for doing it. This part of the process is not to go through the President's items in detail but to establish some caps on spending. How much are we willing to increase the deficit? That is what we are debating and deciding. Can we show restraint and fiscal responsibility so that over a period of time we reduce the amount that we are increasing the deficit? Can we reduce the rate of spending? We are not talking about huge cuts. We are talking about reducing the amount of increase, in most cases.

As you get into the specific details of the President's guidelines, you will find things that are very distressing because some of the places he chose to make increases might not be places we would. Some of the places he chose to make decreases might not be places we would. While the President might have a real desire to decrease a certain program, Congress might disagree--maybe because it is a pet program of ours. We have that authority, and we can override any of the baseline indicators the President has sent to us, and we do in a lot of instances.

I again want to remind people that this is setting the overall cap and, of course, giving some suggestions on how to do it.

As chairman of the HELP committee, I look forward to modernizing NIH through the reauthorization process later this year. I am excited to build on the great work of Dr. Zerhouni, the Director of NIH. We will be considering management reforms, including the NIH Roadmap, which will improve overall efficiency. This is particularly important given that the President has recently fulfilled his commitment to doubling the funding for the NIH. That is a monumental thing. We have doubled funding of NIH over the last several years. I applaud the President for improving scientific research, and I look forward to working with him and others to ensure that NIH has appropriate funding to fulfill its mission.

I commend the NIH for their process of peer review to see what research has the most potential to result in solutions to illnesses. I also commend the process NIH uses to give priorities to some very isolated diseases so that those get research, too. They do a marvelous job of allocating what they get. We confer with them regularly to see how they are doing, how quickly they can expand, and how easy it would be for them to include extra money. Like any Government agency or business, the more money they have, the more results they can get. The difficulty, again, is taking a look at the overall picture to see what we can do.

As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, I am committed to ensuring that there is appropriate funding for all agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services while still keeping in mind the current budget deficit.

As we all know, the President's budget is a target, and the actual appropriations amount for NIH and other agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services will be more fully discussed after we have reauthorized the program.

Any time we reauthorize a program, there is a need to examine that program carefully and decide what legislative constraints exist that keep people from doing their job in the most efficient way possible. We need to look at the things NIH has discovered since the last reauthorization and decide what programs have been completed and can now be eliminated--this type of reauthorization leads to more efficiency and more cost effective solutions.

We want more cures. We have an agency that has the kind of direction and the capability to do more. As chairman of the authorizing committee that has jurisdiction over this agency, I look forward to working closely with Senator Specter and other appropriators to determine the agency's appropriate allocation of funding later this year. I strongly support the mission of NIH to pursue fundamental knowledge about nature and living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

That is one of the reasons that a couple of weeks ago we passed the genetics nondiscrimination legislation--to make sure people have more access to blood tests without any negative effects as a result of things learned from blood tests and the Genome Project. I was pleased that passed the Senate unanimously, which also shows the concern for doing the right thing with health.

We are making amazing progress, and I look forward to modernizing the process we use to achieve that progress through the reauthorization process later this year.

This amendment also assumes a $500 million increase in the Education Department to fund that Department at the 2005 level. I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the administration's proposed cuts to higher education programs such as TRIO, GEAR UP, and vocational education. Again, I want to point out the President's basic structure for arriving at a cap number. We are going to be working on this cap number. We are not going to be approving or disapproving the way the President got to those numbers. And, quite frankly, for the 8 years I have been in the Senate, there have been suggested changes by both Presidents that would affect TRIO, GEAR UP, and vocational education. Every time, the Senate has made sure those things did not happen.

We are interested in vocational education. For example, last week we passed the Perkins reauthorization for career and technical education. That was a commitment 99 to 0 by this body that we want to have career and vocational education at the high school level, and it is absolutely essential that we have that.

One of the things we are concerned about is the number of dropouts in high school. We want to reduce that. The amount that the Federal Government contributes to solving that problem is very small. In fact, mostly what we do is increase paperwork and tests that require additional time out of the classroom. That is not the best way to strengthen education for our kids.

We are looking for ways to decrease the dropout rate. I am pretty sure, if we eliminate career and technical education, we are going to increase the dropout rate.

But we have a plan within the committee authorization to be able to do the things we need to do in education, working them into a logical, staged

mechanism so we can continue to provide and increase the number of things that are being done in education.

This year, the HELP Committee is scheduled to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. The budget resolution contains a $5 billion reserve fund for new higher education spending. I want to review all of these programs in the context of the higher education reauthorization. We need to make sure there is a good map for getting from here to there which reduces the dropout rate and the wasted senior year and eliminates the amount of remedial education kids have to do once they go to college. Twenty-eight percent of the kids have to take a remedial reading or math class when they get to college. That takes time and that takes money when it is done at the college level. Yet we have some wasted senior years. We want to move that back in the process. We think we have that capability in what we are already allowed to do. We looked carefully at the budget. It is not easy, but it is possible to do.

I thank the chairman of the committee for working with us so that we have some flexibility within our area so we can achieve what we need to do.

Finally, I would like to point out that if the Specter amendment is agreed to, it will be the first amendment to the 2006 budget resolution to be offset by using Function 920, which is currently an unfunded administrative account.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Specter amendment.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, again I say what we are looking at when we see the President's proposal is their suggestions for how we get to the budget cap number they talk about.

The House and the Senate agree and have made a decision--I am pretty sure the House voted on it--that is going to be an essential part of education. So as we have done in the past, we will take money from other areas and shift it into vocational training. The President's proposal was to take that money from vocational education and put it into the high school No Child Left Behind Program. Those numbers are even in the President's budget, but we have chosen that there are other ways we can do high school improvement other than taking away this vocational money and putting it into the high school No Child Left Behind Program.

What we are doing is flexing even within what the President said and taking the money they were going to take from the vocational education and put in some increased testing and accountability and moving them back into vocation.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, I ask Senators to oppose this amendment. It is something we would all like to do, of course, but we are in a budget crunch and need to make some small decisions on restraining the rate of growth. This is one of those places where we need to start. It is always nice to give away money, but $1.5 billion on a fund where we met our obligation to double it is not appropriate at this time.

On the education front, we have taken a look at all of the funding that is needed. Of course, there are a lot of things we would like to do. I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire allowing us a $5 billion reserve for higher education reauthorization as well as some obligations in the budget process.

This amendment uses a little different process than the rest of them. It is the first amendment we have had that balances out of account 920, which means there is no money in 920. It takes money from every other account and puts it in 920 so it can be used for this. So it would actually be stealing from every other priority you might have in the budget. I ask that Members vote against it.

I want to begin by complimenting Chairman Gregg, Senator Conrad, and our leadership for bringing the budget resolution to the floor. Last week the Budget Committee reported out the resolution on a party line vote, after a full day of debating and voting on amendments. I am encouraged by the pace at which we are moving forward. It was only 5 weeks ago that President Bush sent his proposal to the Hill for Congress to review.

Last year we passed a budget out of the committee and on the Senate floor but were unable to reach an agreement on a Conference Report. That was unfortunate for a lot of reasons. The Budget Resolution sets a blueprint that Congress is supposed to follow for the year. It establishes spending guidelines, and procedural hurdles for the floor when we fail to live by these guidelines. Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad have worked tirelessly to get us where we are today. I commend them for that, and hope that this pace will continue so we can have a budget resolution conference report voted on quickly.

The budget process forces Congress to contemplate our legislative and spending priorities each year. However, I'd like to remind everybody we're not debating appropriations today. My colleagues from the other side of the aisle will try to make this budget debate about proposed cuts to individual programs and pet projects, but we're not cutting any individual programs today. Let me say that again, we're not cutting any individual programs today. We are not making the decisions this week as to which individual programs will be funded. We are setting overall funding levels that will hold our colleagues' spending in check down the road.

However, despite this fact, we are going to hear amendment after amendment that proposes to increase funding for one program or another by increasing taxes.

For example, an amendment that proposes to increase funding under function 750 for COPS grants by eliminating tax relief for working Americans does not guarantee that funding will actually find its way into those grant accounts. That decision will be made by the appropriators and the Senate during the debate on appropriations. That means much of the rhetoric we will hear throughout the debate is political, not practical. Right now, we can only decide the amount of money, not where it will end up.

Setting the overall funding level for fiscal year 2006 is especially challenging, because I think most of us agree that deficit reduction must be a top priority. When I read the administration's budget request they presented in February, I saw that President Bush proposed the first budget since Ronald Reagan that cut non-security discretionary spending.

I have a long track record in support of deficit reduction, and I am committed to helping President Bush and Chairman Gregg achieve this goal. As we know from marking up the resolution last week, the committee-reported resolution contains instructions that would require authorizing committees to reduce mandatory spending. Many of these cuts will come from programs that I oversee in my role as chairman of the HELP Committee.

I am committed to reviewing and strengthening programs under HELP's jurisdiction to ensure they are cost effective, not duplicative, and that accountability is required. Because Federal dollars are limited, we need to focus our resources on opportunities where programs will make a difference, and where results can be measured.

One main priority for the committee this year is reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The committee-reported resolution and the President's budget both propose spending cuts, while also making room for new initiatives. Critics of the President may claim that we are unreasonably cutting education spending. However, in addition to required savings, the resolution also contains a $5 billion reserve fund for new initiatives. My colleagues who have worked on education policy understand that there are reforms to lending programs we can work toward that shouldn't be contentious. I want to work with all of my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the

aisle, to craft a bipartisan reauthorization bill that enhances access to higher education for poor and middle class families. Higher ed reauthorization should be a bipartisan bill, like it has been historically.

The resolution also proposes deficit reduction from savings associated with changes to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Right now the PBGC has a deficit of $23 billion. The Committee-reported Resolution incorporates a $5.3 billion reduction of that deficit over 5 years. Only a small part of this can be accomplished through reconciliation. The HELP Committee will collaborate with the Finance Committee to reach this goal in the context of comprehensive pension reform. Chairman Grassley and I are committed to restoring the financial stability of the defined benefit system. The solvency of the PBGC is a critical component of these reforms.

I am pleased the resolution again identifies tax relief as a top priority this year. The resolution includes reconciliation instructions that will allow $70 billion of tax cuts through the reconciliation process. I hope this will enable the Finance Committee and our leadership to keep in place the tax relief that has produced 21 consecutive months of job creation and produced more than 3 million new jobs. These progrowth tax policies have jumpstarted American business, and yielded continued increases in technology, infrastructure and equipment investments. We need to keep the trend going. The committee- reported resolution allows the Finance Committee to extend key provisions like the reduction in tax rates on capital gains and dividends, the increase in expensing for small business under Section 179 and the ability of individuals in states without income taxes to deduct their local and state sales tax from their Federal income tax liability. I want to thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership at the Finance Committee these past 4 years.

The resolution also demonstrates a commitment to energy development in Wyoming and in the entire United States. It is the first step towards developing a comprehensive energy policy in the 109th Congress. The energy reserve fund and the reconciliation instructions for an energy tax incentives package will lay the footwork for a policy that will help our Nation meet its energy needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Specifically, I would like to reinforce my support for recognizing the importance of developing lean coal technologies, something that is vital for the economy of Wyoming. I look forward to working so that these technologies receive the funding necessary to become viable.

I again want to thank Chairman Gregg and his staff for their hard work on this resolution. They have all worked tirelessly, through many weekends, to get us here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senate for considering this bill at this moment. It is a bill that has wide bipartisan support. I thank Senator Kennedy and all of the members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and all of the staff members who have worked on this bill. It has been a tremendous bipartisan effort to make sure that we will have as many people able to enter the workforce with good skills as possible and to make an improvement in the way high schools operate.

I thank a number of Senators for being cosponsors: Senators Gregg, Alexander, Dodd, Jeffords, Murray, Harkin, Mikulski, Clinton, Reed, Bingaman, Sessions, Burns, Thomas, Isakson, and Roberts. Of course, those are in addition to the two main sponsors, Senator Kennedy and myself.

We are pleased to have a bipartisan effort, one that strengthens and improves the Federal program designed to support career and technical education. I am pleased the Senate is able to consider this legislation at this time.

This legislation was reported favorably by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee yesterday morning and it was by unanimous vote. I am encouraged by the wide range of support in the committee and outside, and there are good reasons for that. The program adds emphasis to academic instruction. It provides career training. It is already at work in all of the schools and is making some great inroads. And those will be much better with these changes.

I have to mention a couple of examples of the ways this is working in Wyoming. In Casper, WY right now, the community college and the school district are working on plans to create a hybrid career and technical education center which will help students earn credit toward a college degree, learn relevant job skills, and meet State academic standards all through a single sequence of courses. The legislation encourages more schools to begin innovative programs such as the one developed in Casper.

The second reason the legislation is important is because it will help ensure that we are preparing students for tomorrow's workforce. We are in the midst of a skills revolution. Students going to school probably will not go to work for a single company and work there 30 years and then retire. The statistics show that they will probably have 14 different careers--not 14 different jobs, 14 different careers. Many of them won't even have been invented now. It is very important that we have a flexible learning environment that will allow them to cope with these changes.

I also wanted to mention a program in Rock Springs, WY. Ted Schroeder, a career and technical education teacher, has demonstrated firsthand the success that comes from connecting career and technical education to the needs of business. In response to complaints heard from local businesses about the need for students with stronger accounting skills, Ted went looking for a program that could help train his students with the skills requested by the businesses. I am very pleased that it was accounting, too. We could use a couple more accountants in the Senate.

Working with local teachers and school leaders, Ted began a computer- based accounting program at the high school in Rock Springs and has been enrolling students successfully for the past few years. Some of the students are now moving on to community college. Some have moved into the workforce where they are successfully meeting a need for the business community and for their own lives.

A final reason, too, for this being important legislation is that it provides a foundation for the redesign of Federal education policy.

I have a letter from the Secretary of Education that asks some questions that we have answers for based on the work we did putting this bill together. I ask unanimous consent that her letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his outstanding comments, and I appreciate the charts he had giving real-life examples of some things happening in his State. I can tell you that those are happening throughout the Nation.

The issue our committee is concerned about is the high dropout rate in high schools in the United States. Mr. President, 68 percent of the kids who start as freshmen will not graduate. They will drop out of the program at some time. For minorities, it is considerably higher. We are trying to figure out some way to keep them more interested in school, keep them on a learning program, which they will have to be for the rest of their lives if they are going to have high-quality jobs. We believe this bill is the first leg of a three-legged stool that will provide that. We will have other bills we will be bringing along at a later time.

I thank our fellow Senators for their indulgence in allowing us to bring this bill up. I look forward to getting it through the Senate.

I yield back my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next series of votes begin at 4:30 p.m. today.

For the information of my colleagues, the next vote, which will begin at 4:30 p.m., will be on passage of the Perkins vocational education bill which was just debated, to be followed by a series of rollcall votes on the remaining amendments to the bankruptcy bill, to be followed by final passage. That means there could be up to seven rollcall votes in this next series of consecutive rollcall votes. Once again, we urge Members to stay close to the Chamber during these votes to avoid missing any.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy which would increase the minimum wage by an unprecedented 41 percent. Apart from its numerous other problems, this proposal is fundamentally flawed because it presumes that Congress, by simply imposing an artificial wage increase, will meaningfully address the real issues of the lowest paid workers. That is simply not the case.

Regardless of the size of a wage increase Congress might impose, the reality is that yesterday's lowest paid worker, assuming he still has a job, will continue to be America's lowest paid worker tomorrow. Advancement on the job and earned wage growth can simply not 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 on the acquisition and improvement of jobs and job-related skills. In this context, we should recognize that only 68 percent of the students entering the ninth grade 4 years ago are expected to graduate this year. For minority students, this number hovers around 50 percent. In addition, we continue to experience a dropout rate of 11 percent per year.

These noncompletions and dropout rates and the poor earnings capacity that comes with them cannot be fixed by a Federal wage policy. We always have to keep this in mind. The phrase ``minimum wage worker'' is an arbitrary designation. A more accurate description and one that should always be at the center of this debate is that we are seeking to address those workers who have few if any skills that they can use to compete for better jobs and command higher wages. The effect may be low wages, but the cause is low skills. In short, the problem is not a minimum wage. The problem is minimum skills.

I had a Workforce Investment Act bill that the Senate 2 years ago passed unanimously. We cannot get a conference committee to do upgrades in skills for 900,000 people a year. That would have upped the minimum wage, and it would have upped it in a true way. If we are to approach this debate in a constructive and candid way, we need to know certain basic principles of economics. Wages do not cause sales. Sales are needed to provide wages. Wages do not cause revenue. Revenue drives wages. Wages can cause productivity, but the productivity has to come first to be able to afford the wages.

Skills, however, operate differently than wages. Skills do create sales. Sales produce revenue. Skills do create productivity. Skills get compensated with higher wages or else the employee simply goes elsewhere for true higher wages. Wage increases without increased sales or higher productivity have to be paid for by higher prices. Higher prices wipe out wage increases. Skills, not artificial wage increases, produce the true net gains in income.

The minimum wage should be for all workers what it is for most: A starting point; a starting point in an individual's lifelong working career. Viewed as a starting point, it becomes clear that the focus needs to be less on where an individual begins his or her working career. Instead, more emphasis should be placed on how an individual can best progress.

Real wage growth happens every day and it is not the function of a Government mandate. 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 that these entry level jobs are a gateway into the workforce for people without skills or experience. These minimum skills jobs can open the door to 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, of minimum skilled workers who were given the tools and the opportunity to reach the American dream. Mr. Jack Price, the owner of eight McDonald's restaurants in Wyoming--everyone likes to use McDonald's for the example--had three employees who started working for McDonald's at minimum wage. Now those three employees, those minimum wage employees, own a total of 20 restaurants. They got the skills.

This type of wage progression and success should be the norm for workers across our country. However, there are some minimum skilled workers for whom stagnation at the lower tier wage is a longer term proposition. The answer for these workers, however, is not simply to raise the lowest wage rung, which raises all the other rungs, which drives up the price and takes away their advantage; rather, these individuals must acquire the training and skills that result in meaningful and lasting wage growth.

We must equip our workers with skills they need to compete in this 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 some 14 times in their life, and 10 of those jobs have not even been invented yet.

To support these needs, we need a system in place that can support a lifetime of education, training, and retraining for workers. The end result would be the attainment of goals that provide meaningful wage growth. As legislators, our efforts should better focus on ensuring that the tools and the opportunities for training and enhancing skills over a Worker's lifetime are available and are utilized.

We tried to do that through the Work First Investment Act that got blocked in the last Congress; 900,000 people trained to higher skilled jobs each year. That would have been a lot of people getting higher wages each and every year.

Since 1998, the Democrats have been pushing a drastic increase in the Federal minimum wage except--listen to this--except when they were in the majority, when they controlled this body. In the 18 months from mid-2001 through all of 2002, while the Democrats held the majority they did not bring the minimum wage vote to the floor. The question must be asked, who would really be helped? Who would be hurt by this amendment we have today to raise the minimum wage by an unprecedented 41 percent, to $7.25 an hour.

First, we must realize that the large increase in minimum wage will hurt low-income, low-skilled individuals, the very workers proponents claim they want to help. Let us be clear: Mandated hikes in the minimum wage do not cure poverty. 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 the CBO estimate of October 18, 1999. In 1999, based on a dollar increase, CBO found that a plausible range of estimates for the potential job losses holds that a 10-percent increase--not a 41-percent increase, a 10- percent increase--in the minimum wage would result in a half to 2 percent reduction in the employment level of teenagers and a smaller percentage reduction for young adults ages 20 to 24. These estimates imply employment losses for an increase in the minimum wage of the amount provided in the 1999 proposal of roughly 100,000 to half a million jobs. Applying that same analysis today could actually double this prediction. Upwards of one million low-wage workers, mostly teenagers and young adults, can expect to lose their jobs or lose opportunities due to the proposal before the Senate for the $2.10 an hour increase.

What every student who has ever taken an economics course knows, if you increase the cost of something--in this case, the minimum wage--you decrease the demand for those jobs. Misleading political rhetoric cannot change the basic principles of supply

and demand. The majority of economists continue to affirm the job- killing nature of mandated wage increases.

A recent poll concluded that 77 percent--that is nearly 17,000 economists--believe that a minimum wage hike causes job loss. The argument these economists understand is this: By requiring employers to pay a higher wage for positions they consider entry level, the mandate forces employers to search for higher skilled employees. Moreover, mandated higher entry-level wages force employers to redefine the nature of the job and the expectations they have for their entry-level workers. Unskilled and low-skilled workers without the new qualifications will, therefore, be the first to be displaced and the last to be employed.

In short, Congress can mandate how much employers pay entry-level employees, but they cannot mandate which workers employers pay.

Even Dr. Rebecca Blank, a former member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, has admitted that without the earned- income credit there would be greater pressure to increase the minimum wage, which has growing disemployment effects as it rises, since it induces employers to substitute away from less-skilled labor toward other technologies.

Let me repeat what President Clinton's Economic Adviser said, because this is something proponents on the Senate floor are unwilling to meet. Minimum wage increases induce employers to substitute away the less- skilled labor toward other technologies. Low-skilled workers will be displaced and lose jobs or will not be hired in the first place.

This massive Federal wage proposal is based on a false assumption that a business that employs 50 minimum wage workers before this wage increase is enacted will still employ 50 minimum wage workers afterwards. Whether a business is in Washington or Wyoming, employers cannot absorb a 41 percent increase in their costs without a corresponding decrease in the number of jobs or of benefits they can provide workers.

So we know there are losers when we raise the minimum wage, but who are the individuals who benefit? While minimum wage supporters often claim the wage floor must be raised in order to lift employees out of poverty, this is simply not the case. Again, the average family income of potential beneficiaries from a $7.25-an-hour minimum wage rate is over $41,000 a year. Clearly, the minimum wage is not a poverty level wage for most employees.

Minimum wage earners who support a family solely based on the wage are actually few and far between. Fully 85 percent--this is very important--of the minimum wage earners live with their parents, have a working spouse, or are living alone without children. Forty percent live with a parent or relative. Twenty-one percent live with another wage earner. Twenty-four percent are single or are the sole breadwinner in a household with no children. And they lack skills. They have minimum skills. They get paid for minimum skills.

Research shows that the poor targeting and other unintended consequences of the minimum wage make it terribly ineffective at 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. Three in four of the poorest workers would be hurt by a wage hike because they would shoulder the costs of the resulting higher prices.

Artificial wage hikes drive prices up. They have to. You cannot pay the wages without it. Everything but Government spending has to be paid for. To pay a higher minimum wage and other wages that have to go up because of it means prices have to be raised. We should not trick workers into thinking they are earning more when they still cannot pay the bills at the end of the month.

As we discuss the Federal minimum wage, we must keep in mind the dangers, also, of a ``Washington knows best'' and a ``one size fits all'' mentality. An increase in the Federal minimum wage is a classic lesson that Washington does not know best and that one size does not fit all. A Federal wage mandate does not account for the cost of living that varies across the country. It costs over twice as much to live in New York City than it does in Cheyenne, WY. However, a Federal minimum wage hike that applies from coast to coast is like saying a bag of groceries in New York City must cost the same as a bag of groceries in Cheyenne. Local labor market conditions and the cost of living determine pay rates, not Federal minimum wage laws dictated from Washington.

Incidentally, that is why Maine has a higher wage rate than the Federal Government. That is why a lot of States have a higher rate. It fits their State. The States can do it without our help. Isn't that amazing.

Now, proponents of a large, federally mandated increase in the minimum wage repeatedly state that the wage floor is too low and that minimum wage earners earn below the poverty line. This argument neglects to figure in the effects of the earned-income credit.

Proponents of large minimum wage increases argue that we should return the starting wage to its 1968 value, when the minimum wage was at its all-time high when adjusted for inflation. However, it is important to note, that the real value of the current minimum wage in 2004 dollars plus the real value of the Earned income credit for a full-time minimum wage employee with two children comes close to matching the 1968 value Democrats claim they are targeting.

As my colleagues are no doubt aware, the earned income credit is a Federal income tax credit for low-income workers that reduces the amount of tax an individual owes, and is frequently returned in the form of a refund. This can supplement incomes by as much as $4,290, for a single adult with two dependents which works out to a cash credit equal to more than $2 per hour paid directly to the worker.

For every dollar in wages earned by a low-income family with two children, the Federal Government provides a tax credit of 40 percent.

Workers with one child have an effective minimum wage rate of $6.90 per hour, $5.15 per hour, plus a 34-percent credit of $1.75 per hour.

Workers with two or more children have an effective minimum wage rate of $7.22 per hour, $5.15 plus a 40-percent credit of $2.07 per hour.

As a household's income rises above around $15,000 per year, the earned income credit begins to be phased out.

It would take a minimum wage increase of around a dollar per hour to reach the ``appropriate'' 1968 rate, when the earned income credit is applied.

The earned income credit has retained the value of the minimum wage for employed workers with families by supplementing their income while avoiding the adverse effects of minimum wage hikes. In fact, using the earned income credit allows us to more effectively target assistance to those workers raising families on low incomes.

Contrast this targeted policy with massive increases in the minimum wage that inefficiently distribute ``assistance'' to individuals without children--mostly teenagers from wealthy families. In summary, the earned income credit is ignored by wage-hike proponents because it proves the flaws in their arguments. Regardless of whether their arguments made sense in 1938, or even in 1968, their rhetoric has been overridden by newer policies such as the earned income credit. I prefer to promote modern policies that help the poor, and not to dwell on stale arguments that no longer ring true.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that the only time low-income workers receive wage increases is when Congress mandates an increase in the minimum wage. It is preposterous and demeaning to argue that only Congress can give low-wage workers a pay raise. More often than not, it is the workers' own dedication, hard work, and willingness to learn that results in their earning higher wages. Workers who were making the minimum wage when it was last hiked in 1997 have learned job skills, received valuable experience, and, as a result, have earned raises above the minimum wage.

Whenever they seek to increase the minimum wage, the Democrats announce the number of workers who will ``benefit'' from the mandate. Interestingly, however, that number has shrunk dramatically over the past 6 years.

On September 3, 1998, Senator Kennedy issued a press release counting the number of minimum-wage-increase beneficiaries at 12 million. That was when his wage hike went up to $6.65 per hour instead of today's $7.25 per hour increase. Today, however, he puts the number at only 7.5 million. That is 4.5 million fewer workers affected by a minimum wage increase. Where did they go?

Where did the other 4.5 million individuals go? They earned raises, on their own, without Congress imposing a Federal wage hike. In fact, statistics show that most minimum-wage workers will earn raises in their first year on the job. These minimum-skilled workers will earn raises as their skills and experience increase.

I share the same goal as Senator Kennedy--to help American workers find and keep well-paying jobs. Minimum skills--not minimum wages--are the problem. Education and training will solve that problem and lead to the kind of increased wages and better jobs we all want to create for our Nation's workers. Lets get the Workforce Investment Act passed and conferenced so the President can sign it and get higher skills training accelerated.

Mr. President, it is a false economy, and if we really wanted to raise it, we would have done something with the Workforce Investment Act, the job training. We would have raised skills, and then employees would have been compensated well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Monday, March 7, 2005, at 2 p.m. to consider the nomination of Michael Jackson to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Alexander and Dodd in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act of 2005'' which reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). This legislation is essential to continued success with welfare reform because it helps low-income parents find and pay for affordable child care so that they can work.

As members of this body know, child care vouchers provided to parents by States using CCDBG funds greatly facilitate the expansion of child care subsidies and promote parental choice by allowing eligible parents to select their preferred type of care setting and provider, including faith-based providers.

Current law provides States with flexibility in determining how to address the child care needs of low-income families and children, including establishing the eligibility requirements for participation.

The legislation we are introducing today adds even greater flexibility by proposing to eliminate the arbitrary Federal ceiling for eligibility. Removal of this ceiling, previously set at 85 percent of State median income, eliminates any Federal income-based restriction on State determination of who receives benefits. However States must continue to prioritize families based on need.

States provide child care assistance to both TANF and non-TANF families. For the first time the Caring for Children Act requires States and territories to show they are spending at least 70 percent of their mandatory child care money on actual subsidies for child care. For TANF families, families transitioning off TANF, and families at risk of becoming dependent on public assistance an assurance of the State's commitment to providing significant funds for direct assistance is critical.

The bill we are introducing today also addresses factors that in the past made finding care difficult for parents. We have specifically required States to meet the child care needs of parents who have children with special needs, parents who work non-traditional hours, or parents who need child care for infants and toddlers. Additionally, the legislation streamlines and reduces unnecessary paperwork by allowing States to provide assistance to eligible families for six months before re-determining eligibility.

The bill also supports the needs of small business owners and operators, by providing resources for small businesses to join together to provide child care for their employees. This will be of great help for rural areas, where small businesses provide most of the employment opportunities.

Last, but most importantly, the bill responds to, in significant ways, the very disturbing reports about the lack of quality in child care and the lack of tangible results from current investments in quality. The bill before us increases the quality set-aside from 4 to 6 percent and directs child care quality funds toward activities that can really make a difference. Under this bill, States would develop child care quality targets and would be held accountable to reach those targets. Quality funds would be available for States to: develop and implement voluntary guidelines on pre-reading and language skills and prenumeracy and mathematic skills and activities for child care programs in the State; support activities and provide technical assistance to enhance early learning and school preparedness in Federal, State and local child care settings; offer training, professional development and educational opportunities for child care providers that relate to scientifically based curricula and teaching strategies through several means including distance learning; offer incentives for child care providers that meet or exceed State child care services guidelines; evaluate and assess the quality and effectiveness of child care programs and services offered in the State to young children on improving overall school preparedness; and other activities that can be shown to improve child safety, child well-being, or school preparedness.

The improvements made to the program by this legislation and the resources it provides will continue to help provide quality child care in my home State of Wyoming, and other rural States. Many families in Wyoming reside in very isolated areas, and by helping to support child care centers in those rural areas, this legislation will help provide high quality child care; a service that many in those communities might otherwise be forced to do without.

This legislation represents a truly bi-partisan effort and I look forward to having it signed into law this year. The Caring for Children Act includes some very important changes in our nation's premier child care program that provide families with the assistance they need to work and access to child care that best meets their children's needs.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Alexander and Dodd in introducing the ``Caring for Children Act of 2005'' which reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). This legislation is essential to continued success with welfare reform because it helps low-income parents find and pay for affordable child care so that they can work.

As members of this body know, child care vouchers provided to parents by States using CCDBG funds greatly facilitate the expansion of child care subsidies and promote parental choice by allowing eligible parents to select their preferred type of care setting and provider, including faith-based providers.

Current law provides States with flexibility in determining how to address the child care needs of low-income families and children, including establishing the eligibility requirements for participation.

The legislation we are introducing today adds even greater flexibility by proposing to eliminate the arbitrary Federal ceiling for eligibility. Removal of this ceiling, previously set at 85 percent of State median income, eliminates any Federal income-based restriction on State determination of who receives benefits. However States must continue to prioritize families based on need.

States provide child care assistance to both TANF and non-TANF families. For the first time the Caring for Children Act requires States and territories to show they are spending at least 70 percent of their mandatory child care money on actual subsidies for child care. For TANF families, families transitioning off TANF, and families at risk of becoming dependent on public assistance an assurance of the State's commitment to providing significant funds for direct assistance is critical.

The bill we are introducing today also addresses factors that in the past made finding care difficult for parents. We have specifically required States to meet the child care needs of parents who have children with special needs, parents who work non-traditional hours, or parents who need child care for infants and toddlers. Additionally, the legislation streamlines and reduces unnecessary paperwork by allowing States to provide assistance to eligible families for six months before re-determining eligibility.

The bill also supports the needs of small business owners and operators, by providing resources for small businesses to join together to provide child care for their employees. This will be of great help for rural areas, where small businesses provide most of the employment opportunities.

Last, but most importantly, the bill responds to, in significant ways, the very disturbing reports about the lack of quality in child care and the lack of tangible results from current investments in quality. The bill before us increases the quality set-aside from 4 to 6 percent and directs child care quality funds toward activities that can really make a difference. Under this bill, States would develop child care quality targets and would be held accountable to reach those targets. Quality funds would be available for States to: develop and implement voluntary guidelines on pre-reading and language skills and prenumeracy and mathematic skills and activities for child care programs in the State; support activities and provide technical assistance to enhance early learning and school preparedness in Federal, State and local child care settings; offer training, professional development and educational opportunities for child care providers that relate to scientifically based curricula and teaching strategies through several means including distance learning; offer incentives for child care providers that meet or exceed State child care services guidelines; evaluate and assess the quality and effectiveness of child care programs and services offered in the State to young children on improving overall school preparedness; and other activities that can be shown to improve child safety, child well-being, or school preparedness.

The improvements made to the program by this legislation and the resources it provides will continue to help provide quality child care in my home State of Wyoming, and other rural States. Many families in Wyoming reside in very isolated areas, and by helping to support child care centers in those rural areas, this legislation will help provide high quality child care; a service that many in those communities might otherwise be forced to do without.

This legislation represents a truly bi-partisan effort and I look forward to having it signed into law this year. The Caring for Children Act includes some very important changes in our nation's premier child care program that provide families with the assistance they need to work and access to child care that best meets their children's needs.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the promise of genomics.

``Dazzling thrilling astonishing breathtaking''. Even for a group given to hyperbolic speech, the language my

colleagues used in this Chamber 2 years ago to describe advances in human genetics is both extraordinarily intense and factually accurate. Little has changed since 2003. Indeed, little has changed in the 9 years we have been considering this legislation. What remains the same is that the tremendous promise of this fundamental scientific advance remains incompletely realized. I am truly concerned that, at the very time in healthcare that we need innovation the most, we tacitly accept limitations on the application of this ``tremendously powerful tool.''

It is vital to understand that we have hurtled forward, over a remarkably short period of time, into an entirely new era of medical practice, one the majority leader believes will be characterized by ``advances . . . more dramatic than any . . . I had the opportunity to . . . participate in over twenty years in . . . medicine''. Barely 50 years ago, Drs. James Watson and Francis Crick completed the work begun by the 19th century Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, when they discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, the substance of which genes are composed. Four nucleotides, a simple combination of phosphate, nucleic acids and sugar, are arranged in an infinite variety of pairs within genes that, in turn, are distributed amongst the 46 chromosomes, which constitute the normal human genome. Operating according to the instructions contained in the DNA, cells in the body produce proteins that control the expression of our individual heredity, e.g. color of hair and eyes, and determine, in part, whether we will be sick or well.

Hardly 2 years ago, Dr. Francis Collins and colleagues at the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute completed mapping of the human genome, determining the exact location of the 3.1 billion base pairs that constitute our ``blueprint of life''. It is encouraging to note that, in an era where government programs are beginning to receive the scrutiny the public deserves regarding results, this program completed its Herculean task 2 years ahead of schedule. As representatives of the people, we now have the opportunity and the responsibility to help scientists and clinicians bring this basic research forward to the hospital, the clinic, even to our very workplaces and homes. There are many, both sick and well, who are counting on us to help put that blueprint to use.

How does the science of genetics, simple and straightforward as it may be to the experts, translate into something with meaning to those outside the scientific community: the Congress; and the citizens whom we represent? In particular, why should the rancher in Cody or small businessman in Gillette care? I can think of three ways.

First, our Declaration of Independence states that we are ``endowed by our Creator with . . . unalienable rights (including) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness''. Clearly, the state of our health can determine how successfully we exercise at least two of those rights. For example, patient care can be much more individualized if it is based on an understanding of the human genome. Current medical practice applies the results from studies obtained in groups of patients to the treatment of the individual; within each group, however, there are patients who respond better or worse to the therapy offered, compared to the response of the group as a whole. The former may be undertreated by standard therapy--they could recover faster or more completely, while the latter may be overtreated--developing complications of therapy that may prove worse than the disease itself. Providers need a way to predict what an individual's response to treatment is likely to be so that a particular course of therapy can be modified intelligently and expeditiously. That flexibility in treatment, guided by an understanding of the patient's unique, genetically determined response, should result in better outcomes. Even today, oncologists are treating cancer patients with protocols that take into account genetically determined differences in how individuals absorb, metabolize and excrete drugs. Drug therapy for other diseases should show similar, clinically relevant variability. Similarly, cardiologists caring for patients with hereditary long QT-interval syndrome, a disturbance in heart rhythm that can lead to sudden death in healthy young people during exercise, are beginning to use genetic testing to help select patients for treatment or observation and to choose amongst the therapeutic options available--lifestyle changes, drug therapy and surgery--the ones most likely to be of benefit.

Second, we recognize, based on long experience, that prevention is better than cure, both for the individual and for society as a whole. Early identification of a genetic predisposition to develop a specific disease can be crucial to an effective intervention, one that, quite often, will be less costly, too. For example, cystic fibrosis--an inherited disease producing life-threatening digestive and respiratory symptoms--is the most common, recessively inherited condition afflicting white American children. Scientists have identified over 700 genetic variations of cystic fibrosis, some of which help to define the clinical manifestations of the disease. Treatment programs for cystic fibrosis that emphasize preventive therapies are associated with the best outcomes. Early identification of those at risk and more precise characterization of what those risks will be facilitates a more productive program of monitoring, more aggressive preventive care and focused treatment. Likewise, sickle cell anemia, an inherited abnormality in the production of hemoglobin, the molecule in the blood that carries oxygen to the cells, is prevalent in African Americans. Sickle cell disease, the most severe variant of this condition, carries a significantly increased risk of disability and early death through a variety of infectious and thrombotic complications. Changes in lifestyle and compliance with regimens of preventive care, e.g. prophylactic antibiotic therapy, are easier for affected individuals to tolerate if they believe that the risks and benefits really apply to them.

Some might argue that diseases like these, though unquestionably worthy of public attention, represent a lesser national priority when compared to the other health care needs. In addition, other pressing domestic and international concerns--deficit reduction and national security--figure prominently, as they should, in the national debate. Wyoming has relatively few citizens at risk for some of the diseases I highlighted today, so most citizens of my state might, understandably, focus their thoughts elsewhere.

I think there are two reasons why they don't. The people of Wyoming take appropriate responsibility for one another's well-being. They lend a hand whenever help is necessary, not in the expectation that to do so will be of direct benefit to them, but because it is, simply, the right thing to do. There is a direct benefit, however, to be realized. Full implementation of the results of the human genome project will have a revolutionary impact on diseases that are of concern to all of us, in Wyoming and across the United States, regardless of our age, gender, or ethnicity. Already, experts recognize the practical and the potential applications of genetic research to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer--e.g., breast, colorectal and ovarian--heart disease, degenerative neurological disease--e.g., Alzheimer's and Parkinson's-- diabetes, and asthma. No longer is it science fiction to anticipate that primary healthcare providers will, by combining environmental risk assessment and education with genetic evaluation, be able to develop, implement and monitor a comprehensive, life-long health plan that maximizes wellness.

Third, and, perhaps, most important of all, Americans must recognize that they have a civic responsibility not only to care for their own health, but to participate in the research yet to come that moves the science of healthcare forward for everyone. Those of us, including myself, who have contributed to this discussion over the last 9 years have all noted the remarkable ``explosion of knowledge'' and the ``great strides'' in healthcare that have resulted from research already performed. More importantly, though, we recognize that, while the science of human genomics has ushered in a new era of vast potential, that promise has not yet been fully realized. There is much that remains to be done to ``unleash the power'' of this science to change permanently the practice of healthcare for the better. Clinical trials are still necessary, to validate

reasonable hypotheses and to determine where innovations should fit into practice. Once integrated, the actual effect of these innovations must be accurately and precisely assessed, recognizing that experience is the great teacher. We must work to foster a culture of enlightened self-interest in the American people, underscoring their altruistic motivation to do what's right. Finally, we have a responsibility to encourage our fellow citizens to participate fully in their own healthcare by working with their providers to incorporate advances in science into their personal health plans as quickly as possible.

Inherent in discharging this responsibility is the need to remove barriers to action. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.'' No better example of this truism exists than the challenge we face in fulfilling, completely, the promise of the genomic revolution. Our objective is clear: to encourage people to seek genetic services, and to participate in essential genetic research, by reducing fears about misuse or unwarranted disclosure of genetic information.

I applaud my colleagues in voting for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New York to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act of 2005. This bill is needed to protect our military personnel and their families from unscrupulous financial products. Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear to many that the lack of oversight in this area has allowed certain individuals to push high cost financial products on unknowing military personnel. This practice must be stopped. Our soldiers and their families deserve much better, especially during a time when so many of them are serving at home and overseas to protect our freedom.

The bill that we introduce today will halt completely the sale of a mutual fund-like product that charges a 50 percent sales commission against the first year of contributions by a military family. Currently, there are hundreds of mutual fund products available on the market that charge less than six percent. The excessive sales charges of these contractually based financial products make them susceptible to abusive and misleading sales practices.

In addition, certain life insurance products are being offered to our service members disguised and marketed as investment products. These products provide very low death benefits while charging very high premiums, especially in the first few years. Many of these products are unsuitable for the insurance and investment needs of military families.

One of the major problems with the sale of insurance products on military bases is the confusion of whether state insurance regulators or military base commanders are responsible for the oversight of sales agents. Typically, military base commanders will bar certain sales agents from a military base only to have the sales agents show up at other military facilities. Since there is no record of the bar, State insurance regulators have been unable to have adequate oversight of the individuals. The bill that we introduce today will solve that problem. It will state clearly that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction of the sale of insurance products on military bases.

The bill will also urge State insurance regulators to work with the Department of Defense to develop life insurance product standards and disclosures. The Department of Defense will keep a list of individuals who are barred or banned from military bases due to abuse or unscrupulous sales tactics and to share that list with Federal and State insurance, securities and other relevant regulators.

Finally, the bill that we are introducing today will protect our military families by preventing investment companies from issuing periodic payment plan certificates, the mutual fund-like investment product with extremely high first year costs. This type of financial instrument has been criticized by securities regulators since the late 1960s.

It should be noted that there are many upstanding financial and insurance companies that sell very worthwhile investment and insurance products to military families. They should be applauded for the fine job that they do in helping our military members and their families. This bill is targeted at the few who abuse the system and prey upon our military.

Congress is fully aware of the dangers faced by our military personnel in keeping our country safe from harm. Likewise, we must do all that we can to arm our soldiers when they face the dangers of planning for their financial futures.

I urge my colleagues to take up this bill immediately so that we can help our men and women in the military and their families.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New York to introduce the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act of 2005. This bill is needed to protect our military personnel and their families from unscrupulous financial products. Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear to many that the lack of oversight in this area has allowed certain individuals to push high cost financial products on unknowing military personnel. This practice must be stopped. Our soldiers and their families deserve much better, especially during a time when so many of them are serving at home and overseas to protect our freedom.

The bill that we introduce today will halt completely the sale of a mutual fund-like product that charges a 50 percent sales commission against the first year of contributions by a military family. Currently, there are hundreds of mutual fund products available on the market that charge less than six percent. The excessive sales charges of these contractually based financial products make them susceptible to abusive and misleading sales practices.

In addition, certain life insurance products are being offered to our service members disguised and marketed as investment products. These products provide very low death benefits while charging very high premiums, especially in the first few years. Many of these products are unsuitable for the insurance and investment needs of military families.

One of the major problems with the sale of insurance products on military bases is the confusion of whether state insurance regulators or military base commanders are responsible for the oversight of sales agents. Typically, military base commanders will bar certain sales agents from a military base only to have the sales agents show up at other military facilities. Since there is no record of the bar, State insurance regulators have been unable to have adequate oversight of the individuals. The bill that we introduce today will solve that problem. It will state clearly that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction of the sale of insurance products on military bases.

The bill will also urge State insurance regulators to work with the Department of Defense to develop life insurance product standards and disclosures. The Department of Defense will keep a list of individuals who are barred or banned from military bases due to abuse or unscrupulous sales tactics and to share that list with Federal and State insurance, securities and other relevant regulators.

Finally, the bill that we are introducing today will protect our military families by preventing investment companies from issuing periodic payment plan certificates, the mutual fund-like investment product with extremely high first year costs. This type of financial instrument has been criticized by securities regulators since the late 1960s.

It should be noted that there are many upstanding financial and insurance companies that sell very worthwhile investment and insurance products to military families. They should be applauded for the fine job that they do in helping our military members and their families. This bill is targeted at the few who abuse the system and prey upon our military.

Congress is fully aware of the dangers faced by our military personnel in keeping our country safe from harm. Likewise, we must do all that we can to arm our soldiers when they face the dangers of planning for their financial futures.

I urge my colleagues to take up this bill immediately so that we can help our men and women in the military and their families.