Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask consent that Stephanie Strasko of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, over the past several years, among the most challenging issues for this Congress has been reform of the Nation's energy policy.

Despite rising fuel costs and growing dependence on imported oil, despite evidence of global warming and concerns about the quality of our air and water, despite all the recent advances in renewable energy technology, we hobble along on an energy policy that is more than a decade out of date.

Fortunately, there are several initiatives in energy policy on which there is wide bipartisan support.

Perhaps the best example of an idea on which there is solid agreement is the importance of developing our hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen has the potential to transform completely the way we think of transportation, with vehicles that consume no foreign oil, spew no smog, no toxic emissions, and zero greenhouse gases. But only if we make it the right way.

You see, to get energy out of hydrogen, first you have to make it. And the way we make it is going to make all the difference to our energy future.

Right now, the main way we make hydrogen is from natural gas.

Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but its price is volatile. And as a fossil fuel, it is a finite resource and releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when burned.

Ultimately, we hope to form hydrogen from pollution-free water, using wind or solar energy to extract the hydrogen--the H2--from the H2O. But this technology is still too expensive to make a significant contribution to our energy needs today.

Thanks to research at some of the country's leading institutions, including those in my state of Iowa, a cost-effective technology is now available to produce hydrogen from another clean, renewable energy source: one that we grow right here at home.

Hydrogen can now be formed from ethanol made entirely from corn and other agricultural products grown right here on American farms.

Ethanol is an increasingly important source of fuel. It is made from corn and other agricultural products from farms throughout the Midwest and increasingly in other parts of the country. It is manufactured in plants scattered across rural America, and has become one of the most important value-added enterprises for our rural economies.

Today, ethanol is made from corn, as well as from crop residues, stalks, and other low-cost biomass.

By blending ethanol into conventional gasoline we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, support rural economies, and make a cleaner- burning fuel. But even blended fuel produces some pollution, and we still depend on imported oil for the gasoline component.

A vital next step is to begin using ethanol to make hydrogen. Hydrogen from ethanol produces little in the way of pollution. Whatever carbon dioxide is released gets absorbed by next year's crop as it grows; and it's possibly the most economical way to make renewable hydrogen for the foreseeable future.

Imagine hydrogen ``Made in the USA'' from crops ``Grown in the USA'' with generating facilities in rural communities in desperate need of jobs and economic growth.

So why aren't all of our cars being converted to run on renewable farm-based hydrogen? As we all know, the fuel cells needed to convert that hydrogen efficiently into usable energy are still years from being commercially ready.

However, hydrogen-powered internal combustion hybrid electric engines have been developed that can achieve over 90 percent of the environmental benefits and 100 percent of the reduced oil import benefits of fuel cells, and this technology is ready for demonstration right now.

American businesses are ready to show the world that hydrogen can be produced from clean, farm-based renewable sources, and that renewable hydrogen can be used as a fuel for our cars and trucks.

As we debate the bigger picture of our Nation's energy policy, we have the opportunity to make a small investment with huge potential.

Now is the time for a renewable hydrogen transportation demonstration program.

I am introducing the Renewable Hydrogen Passenger Vehicle Act of 2005 to provide a testing ground for renewable farm-based hydrogen transportation technology. We need to get renewable hydrogen production out into fueling stations, where it can be put through its paces, analyzed and improved for the day when fuel cells arrive, so we can supply our fuel cells with clean, renewable hydrogen right from day one.

This bill would authorize $5 million over three years to develop and demonstrate the cost-effective operation of a small hydrogen-from- ethanol reformer and a fleet of at least 10 internal combustion hybrid electric vehicles converted to run on that hydrogen.

The program would allow investors, manufacturers and entrepreneurs to see first-hand that clean renewable hydrogen can be cost-effectively produced from farm-based fuels; that the technology to run our vehicles on renewable hydrogen is here and ready to deploy; and that renewable hydrogen is ready for the day that fuel cell vehicles arrive in local showrooms.

The successful demonstration will help stimulate development of hydrogen fueling systems at existing gasoline fueling stations to convert ethanol to hydrogen onsite, thereby significantly accelerating the adoption of super-clean domestic renewable hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline made from imported oil.

It includes monitoring of emissions and fuel economy data, quick start-up and rapid deployment--all for a tiny fraction of the funds already being invested in fuel cell research.

This is not a large or costly initiative, but it is one that has the potential to take us a big step towards a clean, renewable hydrogen- based economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, over the past several years, among the most challenging issues for this Congress has been reform of the Nation's energy policy.

Despite rising fuel costs and growing dependence on imported oil, despite evidence of global warming and concerns about the quality of our air and water, despite all the recent advances in renewable energy technology, we hobble along on an energy policy that is more than a decade out of date.

Fortunately, there are several initiatives in energy policy on which there is wide bipartisan support.

Perhaps the best example of an idea on which there is solid agreement is the importance of developing our hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen has the potential to transform completely the way we think of transportation, with vehicles that consume no foreign oil, spew no smog, no toxic emissions, and zero greenhouse gases. But only if we make it the right way.

You see, to get energy out of hydrogen, first you have to make it. And the way we make it is going to make all the difference to our energy future.

Right now, the main way we make hydrogen is from natural gas.

Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but its price is volatile. And as a fossil fuel, it is a finite resource and releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when burned.

Ultimately, we hope to form hydrogen from pollution-free water, using wind or solar energy to extract the hydrogen--the H2--from the H2O. But this technology is still too expensive to make a significant contribution to our energy needs today.

Thanks to research at some of the country's leading institutions, including those in my state of Iowa, a cost-effective technology is now available to produce hydrogen from another clean, renewable energy source: one that we grow right here at home.

Hydrogen can now be formed from ethanol made entirely from corn and other agricultural products grown right here on American farms.

Ethanol is an increasingly important source of fuel. It is made from corn and other agricultural products from farms throughout the Midwest and increasingly in other parts of the country. It is manufactured in plants scattered across rural America, and has become one of the most important value-added enterprises for our rural economies.

Today, ethanol is made from corn, as well as from crop residues, stalks, and other low-cost biomass.

By blending ethanol into conventional gasoline we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, support rural economies, and make a cleaner- burning fuel. But even blended fuel produces some pollution, and we still depend on imported oil for the gasoline component.

A vital next step is to begin using ethanol to make hydrogen. Hydrogen from ethanol produces little in the way of pollution. Whatever carbon dioxide is released gets absorbed by next year's crop as it grows; and it's possibly the most economical way to make renewable hydrogen for the foreseeable future.

Imagine hydrogen ``Made in the USA'' from crops ``Grown in the USA'' with generating facilities in rural communities in desperate need of jobs and economic growth.

So why aren't all of our cars being converted to run on renewable farm-based hydrogen? As we all know, the fuel cells needed to convert that hydrogen efficiently into usable energy are still years from being commercially ready.

However, hydrogen-powered internal combustion hybrid electric engines have been developed that can achieve over 90 percent of the environmental benefits and 100 percent of the reduced oil import benefits of fuel cells, and this technology is ready for demonstration right now.

American businesses are ready to show the world that hydrogen can be produced from clean, farm-based renewable sources, and that renewable hydrogen can be used as a fuel for our cars and trucks.

As we debate the bigger picture of our Nation's energy policy, we have the opportunity to make a small investment with huge potential.

Now is the time for a renewable hydrogen transportation demonstration program.

I am introducing the Renewable Hydrogen Passenger Vehicle Act of 2005 to provide a testing ground for renewable farm-based hydrogen transportation technology. We need to get renewable hydrogen production out into fueling stations, where it can be put through its paces, analyzed and improved for the day when fuel cells arrive, so we can supply our fuel cells with clean, renewable hydrogen right from day one.

This bill would authorize $5 million over three years to develop and demonstrate the cost-effective operation of a small hydrogen-from- ethanol reformer and a fleet of at least 10 internal combustion hybrid electric vehicles converted to run on that hydrogen.

The program would allow investors, manufacturers and entrepreneurs to see first-hand that clean renewable hydrogen can be cost-effectively produced from farm-based fuels; that the technology to run our vehicles on renewable hydrogen is here and ready to deploy; and that renewable hydrogen is ready for the day that fuel cell vehicles arrive in local showrooms.

The successful demonstration will help stimulate development of hydrogen fueling systems at existing gasoline fueling stations to convert ethanol to hydrogen onsite, thereby significantly accelerating the adoption of super-clean domestic renewable hydrogen as an alternative to gasoline made from imported oil.

It includes monitoring of emissions and fuel economy data, quick start-up and rapid deployment--all for a tiny fraction of the funds already being invested in fuel cell research.

This is not a large or costly initiative, but it is one that has the potential to take us a big step towards a clean, renewable hydrogen- based economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on our side?

I thank the Chair.

President John Kennedy used to say that to govern is to choose. Certainly that is what a proposed budget is all about. It is about choices and priorities and the values that underlie them.

A budget is not just numbers. There are a lot of figures in there, but ultimately a budget is about people and priorities and what kind of an America we want. It speaks about the values of our country.

On that score, President Bush's proposed budget for 2006, sent yesterday to the Congress, speaks in the starkest of terms. Gone is any pretense of compassionate conservatism. Gone is any pretense of concern for the most needy in our society. Instead, what we see in the budget released yesterday is an unvarnished message that the far right rules, that the gloves are off, and future budgets will reflect traditional hard right priorities.

Specifically, the President's position is that the tax cuts for the very rich must not be touched. In fact, they must be made permanent. Moreover, two additional tax cuts for the very wealthy--tax cuts passed in the 2001 tax bill which become effective next year--must also not be touched. Meanwhile, President Bush proposes to slash critical life- supporting programs for veterans, schoolchildren, the sick, the poor, the disabled, the most vulnerable in our American family.

This proposed budget is the antithesis of compassionate governance. Yes, President Bush still trots out the conservative rhetoric about tightening our belt and making difficult choices in next year's budget. But he has a double standard. On the one hand he says times are tough. We can't afford to properly fund education for Iowa's schoolkids, health care for our veterans, economic development for rural communities or programs to keep police officers on our streets. On the other hand, the President says, times are not too tough for yet another tax giveaway bonanza for the wealthiest Americans.

Specifically, the budget released yesterday calls for implementation next year of two new tax cuts worth billions of dollars, with more than half of the benefits going to those making more than $1 million a year. In short, President Bush's proposed 2006 budget is easy on the rich and privileged and tough on children and the poor.

Hard-working Americans are looking at these proposals and saying: Those aren't our priorities. Those are not our values. This is not our idea of fairness or shared sacrifice. Why should a Wall Street speculator making more than $1 million a year get yet another big tax cut while kids in rural Iowa are getting kicked off of Head Start?

I made an inquiry about the slashes in Head Start. I was told: It is only 25,000 kids. The cuts in the Head Start Program in the President's budget would only deny 25,000 kids nationally to Head Start.

Only? I thought we were not going to leave any child behind. Yet we are going to say to 25,000 of the neediest kids in America: Sorry, we don't have room for you in Head Start. Only 25,000?

These are wrong choices and misplaced priorities, and they reflect bad values, values that are offensive to the basic decency and caring and fairness of the American people.

Let's be clear about the game being played here--only it is not a game; it is a deadly serious ideologically driven plan--the objective of this plan is best expressed by Republican leader Grover Nordquist who said his goal is to ``cut government in half . . . to get it down to the size where we can [drag it into the bathroom and] drown it in the bathtub.'' That is their goal.

To that end, over the last 4 years President Bush has engineered a fiscal train wreck, a methodical, purposeful, deliberate train wreck. He has cut taxes by trillions of dollars, vastly increased spending on the Pentagon, spent hundreds of billions on the war in Iraq, rammed through an ill-conceived prescription drug plan costing half a trillion dollars, he has proposed borrowing more than $4 trillion for his scheme to privatize Social Security, a scheme that does nothing to address the long-term shortfall in Social Security, and now the President has the gall to point to this fiscal train wreck, his train wreck, and say the deficits are out of control, but since the tax cuts are untouchable, we have to cut programs for our most needy citizens: We need to cut education, cut health care, cut rural development, cut police officers, and firefighters.

In short, what the President is saying is, we have to tighten belts on members of our American family whose belts are already tightened to the last notch. But to those whose coffers are full, whose stomachs are full, he says: We will give you a bigger belt. In case you are down to the end notch, we will give you a bigger one.

Here are just a few of the most egregious cuts in the budget that was sent to us. First, there are deep cuts in education for the first time in 10 years, at a time when our schools are struggling to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, eliminating funding for education technology, school counselors, alcohol abuse reduction, dozens of other education initiatives.

Secondly, at a time when U.S. workers are fighting for jobs in the global economy, the President's budget cuts job training by $330 million and eliminates vocational education funding.

Next, the budget would slash $1.6 billion in funding for local police, while eliminating drug task forces and the successful High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program which has been so helpful in fighting the meth epidemic in Iowa and other places.

Next, the budget calls for some 2 million veterans to pay a new $250 annual fee to receive health care, and it doubles the cost of their prescription drugs. Welcome home, Iraqi veterans, welcome home.

Rural America is singled out for deep cuts, cuts in programs to help family farmers and rural small businesses to survive, cuts in agricultural conservation programs, cuts in clean drinking water for our small towns and communities. The budget slashes funding for rural health programs by 80 percent. It cuts health profession training by 64 percent. It zeros out the block grants for preventive health care, the one thing we need to do to move from a sick care system to a health care system and have preventative health care block grants. It zeros them out.

Last, the budget calls for giving States more ``flexibility'' under Medicaid. But this is nothing more than a code word for cuts, cuts of billions of dollars in health care for the poorest, for the mentally ill, those with disabilities.

These are the wrong choices, the wrong priorities, and the wrong values. Why in the world are the President's tax cuts for the rich untouchable? We are no longer in a recession. The President says the economy is strong and creating jobs. During the Clinton years, we created 100 times more jobs per month, and we did it not by cutting taxes but by balancing budgets. That is what a budget is. It is to impose some self-discipline. But the budget President Bush sent up yesterday refuses to impose self-discipline except on the poorest and the neediest.

For 2006, the President is demanding a $2.6 trillion Government, but he is refusing to raise any revenue to pay for it. In order to preserve the tax cuts, the President is saying: We are going to have to borrow at least $390 billion, an amount equal to the entire Pentagon budget, and pass it on to our children and grandchildren.

This does not reflect the values of working Americans who sacrifice every day to balance their own budgets. I intend to challenge the President's priorities. I do not accept his idea that tax cuts for the very rich are untouchable while essential programs for our most vulnerable citizens are fair game for cuts or zeroing out. It is wrong to put virtually the entire burden of deficit reduction on the backs of our poorest citizens, yet this is what is being done with this budget.

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share these concerns. The President's budget is deeply disappointing and disturbing. But the President's job is to propose a budget. We now know what President Bush's values are. We know how he wants America to look. That is what he is proposing. It is our job in Congress to write and pass a budget and to reflect the values and the choices that Americans want for their future. I appeal to my colleagues, let us join to write a budget that is fair, a budget that reflects the essential American values of fairness and shared sacrifice and compassion toward the most vulnerable in our American family.

In closing, I noticed last week an article in the newspaper that said ``Bush prays for poor.'' It said:

President Bush followed his State of the Union address with

a prayer Thursday morning, saying that praying reminds the

faithful to hear ``the cry of the poor and the less

fortunate.''

Well, I believe in the power of prayer. I always have. But maybe the President's prayer is a little misplaced. Maybe who we ought to be praying for is the rich. Maybe we ought to be praying that those who have a lot in our society, those who have the biggest homes and the nicest cars, who have the biggest and the fattest bank accounts, those who are able to pass on wealth to their children, maybe we ought to be praying for them in this way: That in their hearts they will understand and know that what we are doing here is wrong; what we are doing

to our American family is not in the best interests of fairness and decency and compassion.

Let us pray for those who have the most in our society, that they will get to this President and say: Mr. President, we have enough. We don't need any more. We need to pay our fair share. We don't need these two new tax cuts that are coming down next year. Take those off the table. Let's have shared sacrifice for all in our society.

And maybe those who the President listens to the most, the rich and the powerful, maybe if they could get to him with a change of heart, then maybe we can change our priorities. Maybe rather than praying for the poor, we ought to be praying for the rich to have that change of heart, to talk to this President, to talk to the leaders in Congress about fairness and equity and justice for the least in our society.

That is what a budget is about. It is not numbers. It is about who gets and who doesn't. It is about what kind of a structure our country will have. It is about hope. It is about giving hope to those who have the least--that they, too, can have a brighter future; that they, too, are members of our family; that they, too, are valuable. And while these poor kids in Head Start don't have a rich parent to get them into a private school, to get them tutoring, who do they rely on for their kids to get that Head Start? They rely upon us--the Government--because they don't have a rich parent or a rich uncle. So, yes, this Government can give hope to people--not just the wealthiest but to those on the bottom. That is what this budget is about and that is why I intend to challenge the President on this budget, to make sure we have our priorities right.

Mr. President, I noticed a plethora of articles recently about the Republican National Committee turning up the heat on Minority Leader Harry Reid. I notice here that there is some other stuff coming out from the Republican National Committee saying they are going to ``Daschleize'' Reid, making Harry Reid, our minority leader, the obstructionist.

Again, this is not what working together means. Look, we Democrats are in the minority. I believe we are the loyal opposition. We need to provide a different view for the American people. This last election was very close. There is no mandate for one side or the other to run roughshod over the other. This is a mandate for us to try to get together and work things out. It is not a mandate for the Republican National Committee to trash, demonize, and drag down the good name of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. But that is what is happening. It has no part here. I was hoping maybe we would be beyond that. I would think we are beyond that.

I have known our minority leader for the last 30 years. He is a good, decent, kind human being. He is tough, but we expect him to be tough in making sure our rights are protected, and making sure the debate flows in the Senate, so we are able to come together and work things out, with having the President of the United States say this is the way it is going to be and you have to follow suit. That is not the way our country works; it is not the way the Senate works.

I am hopeful the RNC will look into their own hearts and see that this is not the right way to do things. It is going to make it tougher to get things done around here. It is going to make it much tougher if the Republican National Committee continues to try to drag down Senator Harry Reid, demonize him, call him an obstructionist, and to ``Daschleize'' him--whatever that means. I guess it means to make Senator Reid the object of scorn for the Republican National Committee. I hope the Republicans in this body will tell the RNC to back off. This is not the way we do things around here.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank my leader and chairman for yielding to me. Again, I want to thank him for his decision to stay as chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds basically all of our health, education, labor, biomedical research programs, preventive health care programs, such as the CDC, which are all underneath this subcommittee.

Senator Specter and I have worked together, as he mentioned, going on I think almost 15 years. The gavel has moved back and forth. It has been seamless, as he said. I could not ask for a better partner and a better chairman to work with on this subcommittee. There are countless numbers of people in this country today--I think mostly of the kids-- who are maybe coming down with Parkinson's or diabetes, who have illnesses facing them that a few years ago were hopeless. But now they have hope. Now they can see certain lights at the end of the tunnel, that they will be cured, that they will be well.

This is due in no small part to the great leadership of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has doggedly through the years fought to make sure we put the money into medical research, into finding the causes, preventions, and cures of these illnesses. It was through his great leadership that we were able to double the funding for the NIH.

There are also countless kids in America today who are getting good school programs, who are in Head Start Programs, as I mentioned earlier, and others, because of the leadership of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. So I thank him for that leadership and for his friendship and, as always, for his willingness to work across party lines to get things done.

Someone once mentioned that there are really two powerful committees on Appropriations: One is the Defense Appropriations Committee and the other is what is now called the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which the Senator chairs and on which I am the ranking member.

Someone once said that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is the committee that defends America. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education is the committee that defines America. I believe that really is true.

Thanks to the leadership of Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, we have defined America well in terms of providing good education, health care programs, job training programs, dislocated worker programs--I am not going to go through the whole list--the Centers for Disease Control programs and the public health service they do across our country. Under the leadership of Arlen Specter, we have defined well for America.

We have some tough choices, as he pointed out, in this budget, and we are going to have to work together to make it work. One thing I can say, having worked with Senator Specter all these years, one thing of which I am confident is that Senator Specter will be fair, compassionate, reasonable, and judicious in helping us work out this budget so that the poorest and the most needy in our society are not left behind.

I thank him for his leadership. I thank him for his willingness to stick with it and to stay as the chairman of this very vital subcommittee. I say to him here on the Senate floor and in public, I look forward to his leadership and his guidance and working with him to help continue to define America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Drake of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, almost 35 years ago, in July of 1970, when I was a staff person in the House of Representatives, I was sent with a commission to Vietnam. My commission was to investigate reports about the South Vietnamese military using tiger cages to imprison, torture and kill people. Our State Department denied the existence of the cages, and our military denied the existence of the cages, calling reports of their existence Communist conspiracy stories.

Thanks to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee and Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, we were able to uncover the notorious tiger cages on Con Son Island. When the pictures I took appeared in LIFE magazine, the world saw North Vietnamese, Vietcong, and civilian opponents of the war in South Vietnam all bunched into these tiger cages, in clear violation of human rights, and in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The reaction was overwhelming. The pictures presented evidence of the cruel, torturous conditions in these tiger cages, how people had been tortured and killed, and how we, the U.S. Government, had provided not only the funding but the supervision for these prisons.

I thought that we had learned from that experience. So it was with a terrible sense of deja vu that I saw the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison last year.

Since the Vietnam era, as a Government and as a society, we have taken strong measures against torture. We have passed a Federal law banning torture, and ratified an international treaty banning torture. The Army field manual today reads: ``The use of torture is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. . . . It also may place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at greater risk.''

Yet, it was in an extraordinary document prepared at the request of Alberto Gonzales, the nominee for Attorney General, that the groundwork for the abuses at Abu Gharib was laid. That document reaches three conclusions:

That the President has the inherent constitutional power as Commander in Chief to override the prohibitions against torture enacted by Congress;

That only acts that inflict the kind of pain experienced with death or organ failure amount to torture and that the interrogator must have the ``precise objective'' of inflicting severe pain even if he knew ``that severe pain would result from his actions''; and

That government officials can avoid prosecution for their acts of torture by invoking the defenses of ``necessity'' or ``self-defense'' even though the Convention Against Torture says the opposite.

Because he had never spoken publicly about his involvement in the development of these policies, Alberto Gonzales's confirmation hearing took on unusual importance. The hearing was his opportunity to explain his role in the preparation of this document and to step away from its conclusions. Instead, when asked about the memo, Gonzales stated ``I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Department.'' Gonzales also reasserted his view that the President has the power to override laws passed by the Congress and to immunize others to perform what would otherwise be unlawful acts. These positions are wrong as a matter of law and wrong as a matter of conscience. The torture memo laid the groundwork directly for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and has done great harm to our stature in the international community.

As the nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales is the person with the single greatest responsibility to uphold and defend the rule of law. Not only is the torture memo a reprehensible document that sanctioned engaging in illegal acts of torture in violation of basic human rights, it is also a prime example of a legal analysis that twists, turns and makes far-fetched leaps of logic in order to justify a policy end sought by the administration. This sort of willingness to circumvent the law, to treat it as an obstacle to be negotiated around, shows a fundamental lack of independence. It calls into question Mr. Gonzales's fitness to be the Attorney General. Because of this, but even more because of his fundamental lack of respect for basic human rights, I cannot support him to be the chief law enforcement officer of this country.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2005, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Cochran, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Lugar, Rockefeller, and Wyden.

The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006 and all Spanish language programming was to be captioned by 2010. This was a much needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programming. Sadly, we have yet to meet that demand. It has been estimated that 3,000 captioners are needed to fulfill the 2006 mandate, and that number continues to increase as more and more broadband stations come online. Unfortunately, the United States has fallen behind in training these individuals. We must jump start training programs to get students in the pipeline and begin to address the need for Spanish language broadcasting.

This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 28 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many require captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides.

But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from the legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately 27 million functionally illiterate adults, 3 to 4 million immigrants learning English as a second language, and 18 million children learning to read in grades kindergarten through 3. I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere--from the gym to the airport. Here in the Senate, I would wager that many individuals on our staff have the captioning turned on right now to follow what is happening on the Senate floor while they go about conducting the meetings and phone calls that advance legislation. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium.

Although the 2006 deadline is only 23 months away, our nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. Over the past decade, student enrollment in programs that train court reporters to become realtime writers has decreased by 50 percent causing such programs to close on many campuses. Yet the need for these skills continues to rise. In fact, the rate of job placement upon graduation nears 100 percent. In addition, the majority of closed captioners are independent contractors. They are the small businesses that run the American economy and we should do everything we can to promote the creation and support of those businesses.

That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2005 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet our goal set by the 1996 Telecom Act.

The Senate Commerce Committee reported this bill unanimously last session, the full Senate has passed this Act without objection twice now, and we stand here today, once again at the beginning of the process. I ask my colleagues to join us once again in support of this legislation and join us in our effort to win its passage into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2005, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Cochran, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Lugar, Rockefeller, and Wyden.

The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006 and all Spanish language programming was to be captioned by 2010. This was a much needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programming. Sadly, we have yet to meet that demand. It has been estimated that 3,000 captioners are needed to fulfill the 2006 mandate, and that number continues to increase as more and more broadband stations come online. Unfortunately, the United States has fallen behind in training these individuals. We must jump start training programs to get students in the pipeline and begin to address the need for Spanish language broadcasting.

This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 28 million Americans, or 8 percent of the population, are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many require captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides.

But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from the legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately 27 million functionally illiterate adults, 3 to 4 million immigrants learning English as a second language, and 18 million children learning to read in grades kindergarten through 3. I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere--from the gym to the airport. Here in the Senate, I would wager that many individuals on our staff have the captioning turned on right now to follow what is happening on the Senate floor while they go about conducting the meetings and phone calls that advance legislation. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium.

Although the 2006 deadline is only 23 months away, our nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. Over the past decade, student enrollment in programs that train court reporters to become realtime writers has decreased by 50 percent causing such programs to close on many campuses. Yet the need for these skills continues to rise. In fact, the rate of job placement upon graduation nears 100 percent. In addition, the majority of closed captioners are independent contractors. They are the small businesses that run the American economy and we should do everything we can to promote the creation and support of those businesses.

That is why my colleagues and I are introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2005 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet our goal set by the 1996 Telecom Act.

The Senate Commerce Committee reported this bill unanimously last session, the full Senate has passed this Act without objection twice now, and we stand here today, once again at the beginning of the process. I ask my colleagues to join us once again in support of this legislation and join us in our effort to win its passage into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I am going to make some remarks today regarding the now unfolding debate regarding the future of Social Security in our country. I don't intend that my remarks will be the end of what I have to say about it, but only the beginning. I envision this to be a long and serious and involved discussion over the next weeks and months regarding Social Security, the future of Social Security, what we are going to do about it as a country, and what the President might be proposing also.

At the outset, let me say that Social Security is the most enduring and popular and successful Government program in our Nation's history. When Social Security was created in 1935, nearly 50 percent of seniors lived below the poverty line. Americans did not look forward to retirement; they feared it. But today, thanks to Social Security, the number of seniors living in poverty has been reduced to 10 percent, and most Americans are able to look forward to their retirement as their golden years--years to be spent enjoying their grandkids, their community, traveling, and having better health. It is an extraordinary achievement for this country to have achieved just since World War II.

Now, to understand the success of Social Security, we have to be clear about what Social Security is not. It is not a welfare program. Only those who work and pay into Social Security are eligible for its benefits. Likewise, Social Security is not an investment program. For that, we have IRAs, 401(k)s, individual development accounts, IDAs, and a vast range of private saving and investment accounts.

So if Social Security is not welfare and if it is not a retirement investment program, then what is it? Well, simply put, it is an insurance program. That is why it is called Social Security insurance. It was established in 1935 to provide benefits to workers and their family members--yes, upon retirement, disability, or death. In fact, the original name for Social Security was the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program, or OASDI, as we have come to know it.

Social Security is a social insurance program that embraces almost the entire American family. It is the highest expression of our connection and commitment to one another. It reflects our core values, our compassion, our decency, our bedrock belief that no senior, no orphan, no survivor, no person with a disability, no member of our American family will be left behind.

I talk about it in terms of our American family because I make the analogy with our own private individual families. In good times, in normal times, the individuals in our own families are independent, self-sustaining, going their separate ways, building their individual good futures. But in our own families in times of misfortune, financial crisis, old age, or death that is when individuals in the family pull together. We come together, sacrificing, if necessary, to give aid, comfort, and support to the family member who is in need.

As Americans, we all value the benefits of the free marketplace. We all believe in individual responsibility. However, we also know that sometimes markets fail. We also know sometimes people fall on hard times, through no fault of their own. Sometimes people become disabled. That is exactly why we have a social security insurance program, to provide a basic safety net for the elderly, for survivors, and for Americans with disabilities.

Social Security has a deep meaning for me and my family, and it is a story I will be telling a little bit today, and I will be enlarging upon it later, but it has to do with my family when I was young, but as it relates to a lot of families today.

I was born in 1939. My father was 54 years old when I was born. My mother was 44. When I was 10, my mother died. My father had three kids under the age of 18. My father had only an eighth grade education. He worked most of his life in the coal mines in Iowa. Not too many people know we had coal mines in Iowa. During the Depression, he worked on WPA programs. In fact, on the wall of my office I still have his WPA card to remind me from where I come.

Then during World War II, when my father was in his fifties--the coal mines pretty much shut down--he was able to work in an ordnance plant and had paid in the requisite quarters to qualify for Social Security.

So when my father reached the age of 65, which was in 1951--and I was now 11 years old--he was in bad health. He suffered from what we called miner's lung in those days. We did not call it black lung; we called it miner's lung. Basically, the most he could do was to work odd jobs, painting houses, fixing things up, and other jobs such as that.

His total Social Security check at that time was about $120 a month. That was the sole source of income for our family. We had no outside income. He had no savings. We owned no land. We owned no stocks. We owned no bonds. We owned nothing except the little house we had. So that $120 a month was our total family income. We lived on that.

I relate that story because when we were young and growing up, Social Security was the only thing standing between us and welfare. We all worked as kids, even at 12, 13, 14, 15. We all had jobs, whether it was working on farms or whatever it might have been. But the fact that my father was able to get Social Security when he was 65 and he was unable to work--most people in those days were unable to work because they worked pretty hard all their lives--was what kept us together as a family.

One might say that was then and today is different. Things have not changed all that much since the 1950s. Today one out of every five seniors, 20 percent, rely on Social Security for 100 percent of their income. For two-thirds of our seniors, Social Security is the major source of income. There may be a little bit of something else. In fact, according to the publication of the Social Security Administration, in the year 2000, nearly 48 percent of American seniors would have fallen below the poverty line if they had not received Social Security. In other words, take away Social Security and we are right back to where we were in the 1940s or 1950s with nearly half of America's seniors living in poverty.

I understand that we have long term problems to deal with in the Social Security program. However, the good news is that Social Security is financially strong and will remain strong for decades to come. This year Social Security will run a surplus in the neighborhood of $150 billion. The cumulative Social Security surplus now stands in excess of $1.6 trillion. And guess what. Every single one of those dollars is invested in rock solid Treasury securities backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

What is more, according to the 2004 Social Security Trustees Report, in the year 2003, surpluses in the Social Security trust fund earned an average interest rate of 6 percent. By contrast, over the 5 years ending with 2004, money invested in a stock fund tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 Index would have lost an average of 2.4 percent per year.

Many people say that money you put into Social Security is gone; it is not there; the Government used it. When they devised Social Security they said: Yes, Social Security money has to be invested in Government securities. Why? Because Government securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

I have been hearing this nonsense for the more than 25 years I have been in public life: Oh, Social Security will not be there for me. More young people today believe in UFOs than they believe that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Every time I have a town meeting someone gets up

and says: We have to change Social Security; it will not be there for me when I retire.

I say: Let me ask you this. Do you believe the U.S. Government, the United States of America will still exist when you retire? Of course, everybody says yes. Of course, the United States of America is going to exist for a long time.

Well, then, I say your Social Security is going to be secure, too, because it is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. The United States has never defaulted on a bond, and we never will.

So to those who say that somehow Social Security will not be there, the Government is going to default and not pay the bonds, right now China is buying U.S. bonds, loaning us money every year to finance our deficit. Are we telling them, Hey, guess what, China, those bonds may not be any good; we may default on those?

Do we tell the private sector that is buying a lot of Government bonds for their portfolios, Hey, guess what, it might not be there? The reason Government bonds are so good is because it is backed by the U.S. Government. That is why Social Security will be there. That is the truth that those who want to privatize Social Security are not telling us.

Does Social Security face a challenge nearly half a century from now? Yes, it does. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in the year 2052 the huge surpluses in the Social Security trust fund will have been used up. But payroll taxes will continue to roll in, allowing about 73 percent of scheduled benefits to be paid indefinitely. Clearly, the 27-percent shortfall will be a challenge. That is about 45 to 47 years from now, and for that reason I welcome the current discussion of ways to address the current challenge. Now, since I have been in Congress--and that has been now 30 years--we have adjusted Social Security twice. Since 1935, we have adjusted it several times. With changing times and circumstances, as we look ahead we make changes, and we are going to have to make some changes now, but not as drastic as some people are saying.

I am interested in hearing the details of the President's plan in his State of the Union speech on Wednesday. Reportedly, at least from what I read in the papers, he will propose a partial privatization of Social Security. Guess how it is going to be financed. By up to $2 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade. Where are we going to borrow that money? We will have to float bonds.

Who is going to buy the bonds? Well, right now the biggest buyer of our bonds is China and Japan. Are we going to tell them we may default on those bonds? No. We are telling them that those bonds are good.

According to other reports, the President plans to follow the advice of his 2001 Commission on Privatization, which recommended that future Social Security benefits be cut by 40 to 50 percent. Well, with good reason Senators from both parties have been very skeptical and critical of these approaches. As even conservatives acknowledge, private accounts have nothing to do with ensuring the long-term financial health of Social Security. One person even described private accounts as ``a solution in search of a problem.''

What is more, the proposal to cut benefits by 40 to 50 percent is not just Draconian, it is totally unnecessary. It feeds the suspicion that the President's real aim is not to save Social Security but to drastically shrink it as the first step toward eventually ending it, like Grover Norquist wants to do.

I will focus the remainder of my remarks today on one part of Social Security that is not being talked about. I have one big overriding concern. I am concerned that those who want to privatize Social Security have almost totally ignored the fate of some 6.2 million Americans with disabilities, people who in many cases desperately depend on Social Security disability benefits.

President Bush says he has no current plans to cut disability benefits, but unfortunately the President seems not to understand that in our Social Security system both the retirement and disability programs are closely linked.

They use the same formula for determining benefits. In an interview with The Washington Post published on January 16, the President acknowledged that:

Frankly, our discussions in terms of reform have not

centered on the survivor/disability aspect of Social

Security.

Meanwhile, the President's Commission on Social Security devoted a mere two pages out of its 256-page report on the fate of people with disabilities. Many advocates of privatization simply assume that disability benefits will be treated the same as retirement benefits. Certainly this was the working assumption of the President's Commission.

The Associated Press reported on January 18 that in the Commission report, disability benefits get reduced along with retiree benefits, in some cases up to 46 percent. The cuts were used to make the plan's finances add up in a report.

Disability benefits get reduced in some cases up to 46 percent. Let me quote from the Privatization Commission's report, page 149, if anyone is looking it up:

In the absence of fully developed proposals, the

calculations carried out for the Commission and included in

the report assume that defined benefits will be changed in

similar ways for [both retirement and disability] programs.

The Commission says it is not necessarily recommending this, but the proof is in the numbers. All of the Commission's calculations assume that disability benefits will be cut the same as retirement benefits. Without those cuts, the Commission's numbers simply do not add up.

There is at least one other proposal on the table for dealing with the 6.2 million Americans who now receive disability benefits. Some advocates of privatization have suggested that these people be thrown into the Supplemental Security Income Program, SSI. The callousness of these proposals is deeply disturbing.

I will state what ought to be obvious to Senators on both sides of this discussion. It is outrageous to treat Americans with disabilities as a mere afterthought in this momentous debate. It is unacceptable to leave them as collateral damage when the smoke clears and the casualties are counted.

Here is the crux of the problem: The President's Commission has proposed dramatic cuts in Social Security by calculating future benefits based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. This approach poses huge risks to recipients of Social Security disability benefits and also to widows and orphans who receive survivor benefits. Bear in mind that Social Security currently uses basically the same benefit formula for all categories of beneficiaries. So if retirement benefits are slashed by nearly half, disability benefits will also be slashed in the same across-the-board fashion with catastrophic consequences. Everyone appreciates that the Social Security payroll tax purchases a very good defined benefit upon retirement. What is not fully appreciated is that the payroll tax also purchases an excellent disability insurance policy, one that would be difficult, if not impossible, to purchase on the private market.

I am going to repeat that. What is not appreciated is that our payroll taxes buy an excellent disability insurance policy, which would be difficult, if not impossible, for you to buy in the private market.

Here are the facts. For the average wage earner with a family, Social Security benefits are equivalent to a $322,000 life insurance policy or a $233,000 disability insurance policy. I had my staff look into how much it would cost to replace those benefits in the private market. The cost of the life insurance alone could be substantial. For instance, the cost of a modest $100,000 term life insurance policy--that is just a term policy--varies from $140 a year for a healthy 25-year-old to $3,815 a year for a not-so-healthy 45-year-old.

The more shocking news is that you cannot accurately price a policy that would make up for disability. The vast majority of currently available disability policies are group policies. Right now, the only people who buy personal disability insurance are members of small, self-selected groups of people who are at a lower risk of becoming disabled, and these group policies are not stand-alone policies; they are supplemental policies. They just

replace a percentage of income beyond what Social Security disability pays. So any change that lowers Social Security disability payments would actually raise the price of private disability insurance, because there would be a larger gap to make up between what people get from Social Security and a minimum replacement level.

More to the point, this kind of disability policy would not be available to just anyone. For instance, according to Patricia Owen, the former Associate Commissioner of the Social Security Administration:

Private insurance generally will not cover the blue-collar

occupations. And long-term disability insurance for workers

is the least offered. With Social Security disability

insurance, all are covered. I would guess that the price of

private long-term disability insurance would be at least 4 to

5 times higher than the percent of FICA that goes to

disability insurance.

Young people better start thinking about this. They better start thinking about what this privatization means in terms of disability.

Any one of us on the floor today, anyone watching us--an accident could happen tomorrow and you could be disabled. I am concerned that in the rush to privatize Social Security we are failing to consider unintended consequences. Americans with disabilities are at risk under the privatization plans now being discussed. I think what we have here is a crisis of mass destruction. Before we went into Iraq we had the weapons of mass destruction. We found out they didn't exist. The President now says there is a crisis in Social Security that justifies slashing benefits by up to 50 percent, that justifies borrowing up to $2 trillion to partially privatize Social Security.

Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there is no crisis in Social Security. But if we go down this path of privatizing Social Security, cutting benefits, making it harder to get disability coverage, we will have mass destruction all right, we will have mass destruction of the American family, our American family, pulling together, helping each other in time of need by putting us all in this great big pool called Social Security insurance.

If the President and Mr. Norquist and those privatizers get their way, we will have mass destruction all right, here in our country--to our way of life, to our American family. We will have mass destruction to a future that people can look forward to knowing that if, they become disabled, they are going to have a safety net to look forward to. If the major breadwinner in the family, he or she, gets killed, dies unexpectedly, that the survivors will have a safety net to get them through school; looking forward to a future when you retire you will have some golden years and you will know that your future retirement years don't depend on whether the stock market goes up or the stock market goes down, that it only depends on one thing, the survival of the United States of America. That is what Social Security is.

I can tell you that in recent weeks my office has been flooded with letters and e-mails from my fellow Iowans who are deeply worried about the reports they are reading. They read about the President's 2001 privatization commission. Many of them know that the calculations assume disability benefits will be slashed. They have heard the proposals that we will just take people with disabilities and put them into SSI. This is deeply disturbing for people with disabilities who rely on Social Security, not just for income but for their dignity.

Social Security disability insurance has been a lifesaver for countless Americans. I think of Steven Cook, a former truckdriver from Iowa City, IA. After a lifetime of working hard, playing by the rules, he found himself unemployed, sleeping in his car, and diagnosed with renal failure. After qualifying for Social Security disability insurance and corollary health benefits, he was able to receive a kidney transplant and begin to put his life back together.

I don't want to add to the worries and fears of people with disabilities, people such as Steven Cook who rely on Social Security, but we have an obligation to raise these issues now, to discuss them, and to find out what those unintended consequences might be of the privatization of Social Security. As I said, the calculations and projections of the President's Commission on Privatization assume that disability benefits will be cut along with retirement benefits. The Commission recommended that ``the President address the disability insurance program through a separate policy development process.''

That recommendation was made 3 full years ago, but, to my knowledge, there has been no such effort to develop any policy to safeguard the disability insurance program. In the absence of any reassurance from the administration, Americans with disabilities--widows and their survivors and orphans--have been left with the worst: Their benefits are going to be slashed in a draconian fashion. This is not compassion, and it is not acceptable.

I have come to the Senate floor today to raise these profound issues. It is time to talk about the fate of millions of Americans with disabilities who rely on Social Security benefits. Is the administration developing a plan to protect these people? Does the administration intend to take its cue from the Privatization Commission and propose steep cuts in disability benefits? Americans need answers. More than 6 million Americans who rely on disability benefits need answers, as we all do. Any one of us could become disabled and face a dire need of this safety net.

I urge the President to consider this issue. If the plan is to privatize Social Security on the backs of our most vulnerable people, that is profoundly a moral mistake. Such a plan I hope will be unacceptable to Members of this body. I urge the President and his advisers to give very careful consideration to this issue.

Yes, we need to address long-term challenges to Social Security. However, Social Security is sound. It is as sound as the United States of America. Will it need changes 50 years from now? Yes. Minor changes can fix it. Does it need to be privatized? No. Do we need to protect the social insurance program for people with disabilities or for people like you and me who are not right now disabled but may be tomorrow? The answer is yes. We can only do it if we have one national social insurance program. It has served us well.

Not all old things are bad. The older I get, the more I think about that. Not all old things are bad. Sometimes I see people wanting to change this or change that. For what reason? They say: Well, it is old. So what? The Ten Commandments are pretty old. I don't think they need to be changed.

Social Security insurance has served us well. It will serve these young people here today well. It will serve all young Americans well as long as we think about it in terms of the American family. We are all in this together. We will all go our separate ways and do our separate things in life, but if trouble falls, if one person becomes disabled, if one person dies and the widow or widower and the kids need help, we are there. We are there as part of a family. You will not get that if you privatize Social Security.

We will fix the long term balance sheet on Social Security. But we should always keep in mind that Social Security is as strong and as sound as the United States of America. If you do not believe in America, you don't believe in Social Security. If you do not believe in the future of our country, you don't believe in the future of Social Security. But if you believe in America and if you believe in the future of our country, you believe we can come together to truly protect Social Security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to introduce legislation and to talk about an issue that my colleagues have heard me speak about on numerous occasions during the course of the past two years, frequently at some length. That issue is overtime pay for American workers.

It is a subject I feel deeply about. It has become very clear to me that Iowans feel very deeply about it, as well. Working families across the country feel deeply about it.

I know that is true because people approach me and tell me what overtime pay means to them and their families. I have become associated with this fight here in Congress over protecting overtime pay, so when people recognize me, they very often will approach me and tell me a little bit about themselves and why they support my efforts on this issue. Many of them even become emotional about it.

Why is that? Why do people feel so strongly? For some, it is a simple matter of fairness and valuing work. They believe that receiving time- and-a-half pay when they put in more than 40 hours of work in a week is fair because if they are going to give up their premium time--hours beyond a normal workweek--then their employer should provide them with premium pay. It is simple fairness. Of course, they might also rely on that premium pay as a substantial part of their income. That is a benefit of valuing work fairly. They make more money.

Most people making overtime pay are not extremely affluent, so they are probably spending a lot of that extra income, putting it right into the local economy. That is therefore a further benefit to the economy.

Other people, to tell the truth, would rather not work a lot of overtime hours. They believe a 40-hour workweek is a full workweek.

That is what the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, did when we passed it in 1938. It established the principle of a 40-hour workweek in law by saying that employers need to pay extra when they work their employees longer than that. The time-and-a-half rule tends to discourage employers from requiring their employees to work longer than 40 hours, and many people value the law for that reason. They want to keep their premium time for themselves. They want to spend their premium time doing leisure activities or performing important family duties.

In 1938, our government decided that the 40-hour workweek was important to Americans. Look in any economic history book. It is treated as a fundamental and valuable principle in our economy. Overtime pay rewards work, and it reduces exploitation. It protects ``premium time'' for working men and women.

The 40-hour workweek says: Human beings are more than just the work they do. It says, the progress of technology can allow us to enjoy a good standard of living and quality of life without spending all of our hours toiling and laboring.

The 40-hour workweek also creates jobs. Requiring time-and-a half pay for overtime work encourages employers to hire more workers, rather than requiring additional hours of work from existing employees. Franklin Roosevelt cited this as a rationale when he signed the FLSA into law.

In 1933, probably for all the reasons I have just mentioned, the United States Senate voted 53 to 30 to set a cap for hours in a workweek. The number of hours was 30. The Senate voted to cap the workweek in the United States at 30 hours. Those were extremely difficult times economically, but the Senate of 70 years ago nonetheless placed a greater value on quality time spent off the job than they did increasing productivity with longer workweeks.

The Bush rules are deeply flawed. They make millions of modest-income and moderate-income American workers vulnerable to losing their eligibility for overtime pay, broadening the categories of workers that are ineligible for overtime protections--often in response to specific requests from industries.

If overtime is free to the employer, it is going to be overused. A study done by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University showed that only 20 percent of the workers eligible for overtime work more than 40 hours a week, but 44 percent of workers who are exempt from overtime pay work overtime.

Several months ago, three former career DoL officials released a report after having done an in-depth review of these rule changes. Their analysis should be read by all to whom the issue of overtime is important.

These were not just any three former DoL officials. These were the top three people who administered these regulations over the course of the last two decades. They speak with enormous credibility on this issue.

These career employees have said that ``in every instance where DoL has made substantive changes to the existing rules, it has weakened the criteria for overtime exemptions and thereby expanded the reach and scope of the exemptions.'' This comes from people who were elevated to their high positions within DoL during the Reagan administration. The fact that they say these new rules are bad for the American worker in all ways but one ought to tell us something.

All of my colleagues are well aware that I led fights on the Senate floor during the last Congress to block or repeal the Department of Labor's FLSA overtime rule changes. Despite the fact that Congress voted 6 times during that period to protect workers' overtime by blocking the new rules, the administration insisted on ignoring the will of Congress. The new rules went into effect on August 23 of last year.

The bill I am introducing today would simply allow any workers who were entitled to overtime before the new rules took effect last August to retain their overtime rights. It makes ineffective those portions of the new rules that allow employers to take overtime eligibility away from workers who were eligible before the new rules took effect.

Secondly, my bill would also increase the minimum salary threshold. The minimum salary threshold that helps define overtime eligibility had not been raised since 1975 before the Bush administration raised it to $23,660. The administration did not raise it high enough, and millions of workers who should be covered are not covered due to this inadequacy. This bill will increase the number of workers covered by overtime protections by raising the minimum salary threshold to $30,712--to correspond with the increase in workers' wages since 1975. The bill also contains language that requires the salary threshold be adjusted annually to reflect and keep pace with increases in inflation.

American workers deserve an iron-clad guarantee that their overtime rights are safe. That is what the bipartisan bill I am introducing today accomplishes. It repeals any provisions of the new rules that took effect last August that weaken overtime protections, and it indexes the minimum salary threshold annually to avoid future loss of overtime protections due to inflation. I thank the 13 of my colleagues who have agreed to cosponsor this for their support, and I look forward to adding more.

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

Mr. President, I am here to introduce legislation and to talk about an issue that my colleagues have heard me speak about on numerous occasions during the course of the past two years, frequently at some length. That issue is overtime pay for American workers.

It is a subject I feel deeply about. It has become very clear to me that Iowans feel very deeply about it, as well. Working families across the country feel deeply about it.

I know that is true because people approach me and tell me what overtime pay means to them and their families. I have become associated with this fight here in Congress over protecting overtime pay, so when people recognize me, they very often will approach me and tell me a little bit about themselves and why they support my efforts on this issue. Many of them even become emotional about it.

Why is that? Why do people feel so strongly? For some, it is a simple matter of fairness and valuing work. They believe that receiving time- and-a-half pay when they put in more than 40 hours of work in a week is fair because if they are going to give up their premium time--hours beyond a normal workweek--then their employer should provide them with premium pay. It is simple fairness. Of course, they might also rely on that premium pay as a substantial part of their income. That is a benefit of valuing work fairly. They make more money.

Most people making overtime pay are not extremely affluent, so they are probably spending a lot of that extra income, putting it right into the local economy. That is therefore a further benefit to the economy.

Other people, to tell the truth, would rather not work a lot of overtime hours. They believe a 40-hour workweek is a full workweek.

That is what the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, did when we passed it in 1938. It established the principle of a 40-hour workweek in law by saying that employers need to pay extra when they work their employees longer than that. The time-and-a-half rule tends to discourage employers from requiring their employees to work longer than 40 hours, and many people value the law for that reason. They want to keep their premium time for themselves. They want to spend their premium time doing leisure activities or performing important family duties.

In 1938, our government decided that the 40-hour workweek was important to Americans. Look in any economic history book. It is treated as a fundamental and valuable principle in our economy. Overtime pay rewards work, and it reduces exploitation. It protects ``premium time'' for working men and women.

The 40-hour workweek says: Human beings are more than just the work they do. It says, the progress of technology can allow us to enjoy a good standard of living and quality of life without spending all of our hours toiling and laboring.

The 40-hour workweek also creates jobs. Requiring time-and-a half pay for overtime work encourages employers to hire more workers, rather than requiring additional hours of work from existing employees. Franklin Roosevelt cited this as a rationale when he signed the FLSA into law.

In 1933, probably for all the reasons I have just mentioned, the United States Senate voted 53 to 30 to set a cap for hours in a workweek. The number of hours was 30. The Senate voted to cap the workweek in the United States at 30 hours. Those were extremely difficult times economically, but the Senate of 70 years ago nonetheless placed a greater value on quality time spent off the job than they did increasing productivity with longer workweeks.

The Bush rules are deeply flawed. They make millions of modest-income and moderate-income American workers vulnerable to losing their eligibility for overtime pay, broadening the categories of workers that are ineligible for overtime protections--often in response to specific requests from industries.

If overtime is free to the employer, it is going to be overused. A study done by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University showed that only 20 percent of the workers eligible for overtime work more than 40 hours a week, but 44 percent of workers who are exempt from overtime pay work overtime.

Several months ago, three former career DoL officials released a report after having done an in-depth review of these rule changes. Their analysis should be read by all to whom the issue of overtime is important.

These were not just any three former DoL officials. These were the top three people who administered these regulations over the course of the last two decades. They speak with enormous credibility on this issue.

These career employees have said that ``in every instance where DoL has made substantive changes to the existing rules, it has weakened the criteria for overtime exemptions and thereby expanded the reach and scope of the exemptions.'' This comes from people who were elevated to their high positions within DoL during the Reagan administration. The fact that they say these new rules are bad for the American worker in all ways but one ought to tell us something.

All of my colleagues are well aware that I led fights on the Senate floor during the last Congress to block or repeal the Department of Labor's FLSA overtime rule changes. Despite the fact that Congress voted 6 times during that period to protect workers' overtime by blocking the new rules, the administration insisted on ignoring the will of Congress. The new rules went into effect on August 23 of last year.

The bill I am introducing today would simply allow any workers who were entitled to overtime before the new rules took effect last August to retain their overtime rights. It makes ineffective those portions of the new rules that allow employers to take overtime eligibility away from workers who were eligible before the new rules took effect.

Secondly, my bill would also increase the minimum salary threshold. The minimum salary threshold that helps define overtime eligibility had not been raised since 1975 before the Bush administration raised it to $23,660. The administration did not raise it high enough, and millions of workers who should be covered are not covered due to this inadequacy. This bill will increase the number of workers covered by overtime protections by raising the minimum salary threshold to $30,712--to correspond with the increase in workers' wages since 1975. The bill also contains language that requires the salary threshold be adjusted annually to reflect and keep pace with increases in inflation.

American workers deserve an iron-clad guarantee that their overtime rights are safe. That is what the bipartisan bill I am introducing today accomplishes. It repeals any provisions of the new rules that took effect last August that weaken overtime protections, and it indexes the minimum salary threshold annually to avoid future loss of overtime protections due to inflation. I thank the 13 of my colleagues who have agreed to cosponsor this for their support, and I look forward to adding more.

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