[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2849-S2853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just as a matter of a point of 
information, on yesterday when there was the announcement of the 
Republican leader, which is on page S. 2839, in the Program, Mr. Lott 
said, ``For the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume the 
Presidio legislation tomorrow morning with the understanding that 
Senator Daschle or his designee will be prepared to offer an amendment 
at 10:30.''
  I am his designee, and I was prepared to offer the amendment at 
10:30. The amendment I was going to offer was the increase in the 
minimum wage. I was offering it for myself, my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, Senator Wellstone, and others.
  This was not in order, I want to make it very clear. So it was not 
consent, but it was an understanding about the way we were going to 
proceed. Now, as a result of our indication to try to get a debate on 
the increase on the minimum wage, and hopefully some action on the 
minimum wage, we have been put into this holding pattern to effectively 
deny us that opportunity for debate and discussion about increasing the 
wages for working families, some 13 million working families in this 
country.
  What we are being faced with is another procedural effort by our 
Republican friends to deny the Senate taking action on this issue. This 
is a similar kind of avoidance by the Senate that we saw on July 31, 
when we voted 48 to 49 on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution; again on 
October 27, 1995, 51-48 to override a budget point of order on the 
issue on the minimum wage, raised by my colleague, Senator Kerry.
  We had a hearing on this issue on December 14, 1995. We have not had 
the markup. We have not reported anything out. We were prepared to 
debate this issue, which is of such fundamental importance and fairness 
to working families in this country. Now we are caught up in a 
procedural situation where we are, at least at this time, foreclosed 
from being able to offer it.
  I can even foresee the possibilities where that will continue in the 
afternoon, as we are coming down to the line for a cloture motion to be 
voted on tomorrow, where those, under the current situation, under the 
right of recognition, will be able to offer an amendment and then offer 
another amendment right on top of that and virtually foreclose our 
opportunity to speak for working families, the 13 million working 
families who have not experienced any increase since 1991 and have seen 
the real value of that minimum wage deteriorate by some 40 percent.
  So we are seeing the commitment of our Republican friends, and 
Republican leadership, which cannot be separated from the Republican 
who is on the ballot out in the State of California, Senator Dole, as 
well as the Republican leadership, saying on the issue of worker 
fairness, we are not even going to permit you to vote on that or 
address that on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We are going to use all 
the parliamentary means of denying working families the chance to get 
any kind of increase in that minimum wage.
  At a time when CEO salaries have gone up 23 percent and we are having 
record profits in 1995; again, 1991, of 23 percent--we are refusing to 
permit the Senate of the United States to even address this issue, to 
vote on this issue--an issue which will mean some $1,800 for working 
families. This is an issue which will affect 13 million working 
families. It will be the equivalent of a year's tuition in a 2-year 
college; 9 months of groceries, 8 months of utilities for working 
families. We are seeing, at a time when the disparity between the 
wealthiest workers and families and poorest families has been growing 
and growing and growing, the small, modest step to try to do something 
for working families, families that work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of 
the year, trying to make it--we are seeing we are effectively being 
closed out. You cannot interpret the kinds of actions we have heard 
here this morning to be anything else.

  Mr. President, I want to point out, because I am on limited time on 
this

[[Page S2850]]

morning hour--hopefully we will have additional time during the debate 
going before the break--this has not been a partisan issue, 
historically. There have only been two Presidents, Presidents Reagan 
and Ford--they are the only two Republican Presidents who have not 
supported an increase in the minimum wage. President Eisenhower 
supported it, President Nixon supported it, President Bush supported 
it. The last time we had an increase, Republicans supported it. Bob 
Dole supported it. Newt Gingrich supported it.
  At that time, we had a Democratic Congress and a Republican 
President. Now we have Republican Congress and a Democratic President. 
And we ask: Why? Why is it that we cannot, at least, debate this issue? 
And why is it that we cannot afford to provide working families with a 
livable wage?
  Mr. President, I hope we are not going to hear our Republican friends 
talk about their concern for working families in this country when 
something that we can do, here on the floor of the U.S. Senate today, 
and the House of Representatives can do in a matter of hours, that can 
make a difference to the lives and well-being of those--that we are 
being denied the opportunity to face this issue, to debate the issue, 
to talk about the issue, to take on the issues which have been raised 
against the increase --the questions of inflation, the question of job 
loss.
  All of those issues which we have debated and discussed at other 
times, we are prepared today, with our colleagues, to debate those 
here. But we are back at a situation where those who lay the agenda out 
for the American people in the U.S. Senate, absolutely refuse to give 
the American working families the opportunity to be heard on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, as we have said before, Senator Kerry, Senator 
Wellstone and others have said before, this issue is not going away. 
This issue is not going away. We have seen the parliamentary maneuvers 
to deny us an opportunity to take action. We have seen that before. We 
know it is out there again today.
  I do not understand what it is. Yes, I could understand. It is, 
again, the power of special financial interests, the special interests 
that just refuse to let working families in this country be treated 
fairly, equitably, and decently. Finally, this is an issue about women, 
since 70 percent of all of those who get the minimum wage are women, 
and it is an issue about children, whether they are going to grow up in 
households that are going to be decently fed and clothed, and in a 
setting which is humane and decent. This is not just an issue about 
men. It is an issue about women and it is an issue about children. It 
is an issue about families. We will not be silenced and we will not be 
denied. We are going to continue to press this. I am absolutely 
convinced that the working families in this country will be heard and 
we will have a successful vote.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, for his leadership in this effort, and Senator 
Wellstone and others who believe that the moment has really come for us 
to confront the reality of the rhetoric in Washington that talks about 
worker anxiety, that pays lip service to addressing the problem of 
downsizing and to the problem of the transformation in the American 
workplace.
  Countless Senators, on both sides of the aisle, have come to the 
floor on many different occasions and talked about the difficulties 
that the American worker faces today.
  In the Republican primaries, it became a major issue as Pat Buchanan 
focused on the anger that is coming out of those workers who work 
harder and harder and harder, play by the rules, pay their taxes, try 
to make ends meet, teach their kids, and yet they cannot get ahead.
  We have an opportunity in the U.S. Senate to ratify what the Senate 
has already expressed. Fifty-one U.S. Senators already voted last year, 
saying they want to vote on a proposal to increase the minimum wage. 
The minimum wage is worth less now than it was when those 51 Senators 
who voted said we need to raise it.
  The Republican majority has the opportunity to set the agenda of the 
Senate and, to some degree, thereby, the agenda of the country. As my 
colleague from Massachusetts said, this is their statement about their 
agenda. Their agenda is to not even let the U.S. Senate debate this and 
have an up-or-down vote on whether or not a majority of the U.S. Senate 
thinks it is time to raise the minimum wage.
  Increasing the minimum wage is not a great breaking of new ground in 
this country. In 1938, we passed a minimum wage and set it at 25 cents. 
In 1938, we came to a consensus in America that we ought to pay people 
a minimum base standard of living by which they ought to be able to 
work and achieve the American dream. Every year since 1938, when that 
wage dipped below because of inflation and changes in the marketplace, 
we raised the minimum wage. Democrat and Republican alike joined 
together to raise the minimum wage. The last time we raised it was 
1989, and I think there were something like 86 or 89 votes in the U.S. 
Senate to raise it to the current level of $4.25.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder, given the bipartisan support since 1938, can 
the Senator answer the question for me, what would be the basis now for 
the opposition of the majority leader, Senator Dole, and others in 
preventing us from even having this amendment out on the floor and 
having an up-or-down vote? Does the Senator have any idea, given this 
bipartisan support, given how important it is to working families, 
given the fact we have heard the majority leader campaign around the 
country about the importance of working families and fairness, what 
would be the basis of opposition to our having this amendment on the 
floor and having this debate? Does the Senator have any idea?
  Mr. KERRY. I must confess to the Senator from Minnesota, I do not 
understand that. I cannot understand why Senator Dole, who previously 
voted to raise the minimum wage, would not want to raise the minimum 
wage above what soon will be a 40-year low in purchasing power. The 
minimum wage in this country soon will be at a 40-year low. The poverty 
level in America is $12,500 for a family of three. It is $15,150 for a 
family of four. On a minimum wage, you can earn $8,500, three-quarters 
the level of poverty for a family of three, and only about half the 
poverty level for a family of four.
  I honestly do not know why the Senator from Kansas, the majority 
leader, the nominee-to-be of the Republican Party, would not want to 
see the minimum wage raised, particularly since he has previously 
joined in the bipartisan effort to try to do that. I do not have an 
answer. Maybe my colleague has an answer.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I can ask one other question, because I am trying 
to understand the disconnect between politics in Washington today where 
at least for the moment you have a Presidential candidate, the majority 
leader, who does not seem to want us to have a debate on this versus 
what we hear back in our States.
  In Massachusetts, as you visit with families and spend time in 
communities, do you find that people talk a lot about the importance of 
jobs, of decent wages and raising the minimum wage? Is this an issue 
that you hear about all the time from people you represent?
  Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend from Minnesota, when you talk to 
working people in Massachusetts and when you talk to almost anybody--
white-collar workers, people who have good jobs in our high-technology 
economy, people who are part of our financial services industry, which 
is one of the strongest in the Nation--I would say 80 percent of the 
people believe that workers at the bottom rung of the economic ladder 
ought to be able to secure income from their work that is at least 
equal to the poverty level. That is all we are asking for here.
  As an example, to answer your question specifically, a fellow named 
Neil Donovan, who runs something called Project Impact, which is a 
Massachusetts organization that puts homeless people into jobs, has 
said that a job placement at the minimum wage is, in

[[Page S2851]]

fact, a recipe for failure. That is the experience of someone who runs 
a homeless shelter and wants to help those in the shelter to move 
toward self-sufficiency.
  Why is that? I can tell you, using as examples people who live in 
homeless shelters. There is a fellow about whom I have talked recently 
who lost his job. He is now in a homeless shelter. Four months ago, he 
found a new job. He is working as a stock clerk, doing errands in a 
small operation. He is working at the minimum wage, and at the end of 
the week, he brings home $132.50. He proudly brings this $132.50 back 
to the homeless shelter in which he still lives, because even the full 
$132.50 is too little to be able to pay for the smallest, cheapest 
studio apartment in the city of Boston.
  That amount does not begin to pay for health care. If you are a 
parent of a young child, it does not pay for day care. It does not pay 
the food bills for the month, after you have paid for the rent. We are 
talking about fundamental subsistence here.
  Corporations have seen their revenues increase 12 percent or more, 
but the total personal income of the country as a whole, taking all 
incomes into account, has only gone up 2 percent. And we know that even 
this increase was not evenly distributed across the income spectrum. 
The incomes that increased were mostly at the upper level.
  Here in the Congress we have a lot of people earning 10 times the 
poverty level. Ten times the poverty level we earn in the U.S. 
Congress, and the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate is unwilling 
to raise the income level for those who are working at three-quarters 
of the poverty level and one-tenth of the salary of Senators.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask the Senator two more questions?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. So what the Senator is saying is that right now, $4.25 
an hour, what happens is that with a family, you have somebody working 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year and still not making poverty wages.
  If we were to raise this minimum wage in the amendment we want to 
offer, I think the senior Senator from Massachusetts said this would be 
an additional $1,800. I know what this means to a family in Minnesota, 
but for a working family in Massachusetts, what does that mean? What 
does $1,800 mean?
  Let us talk in real people terms so that people understand this is 
not some party strategy, this is about people's lives, and we think 
this is critically important to do. As of the moment, we cannot even 
get our colleagues on the other side to debate. What does this mean to 
people in Massachusetts?
  Mr. KERRY. To a family in Massachusetts, say a single parent with two 
kids, that spends about 60 bucks a week on groceries, this means a 
difference of 7 months groceries. What we are talking about is 7 months 
of food for the adult who is the combination breadwinner and parent and 
the two children. Obviously, if you can buy the 7 months of groceries, 
you then may also be able to move some of the money you had been 
spending on food to pay the heating bill, pay the rent, pay the 
utilities, or, if you are lucky enough to own a home, pay the mortgage. 
But, of course, you are very unlikely to own a home if the family's 
income depends on a minimum-wage job.
  But there are many Americans who are hampered in what jobs they can 
get because they do not have transportation. Often that is the 
difference--being able to travel by some means from home to a job. An 
increase in the minimum wage easily could enable a worker to afford 
transportation, maybe a $3,000 used car, so you can travel beyond the 
confines of an area where there are not a lot of jobs, and find a 
better job.
  There are many people with whom I talk in Massachusetts who are 
limited in their ability to get a decent job by their inability to be 
able to get to the job. As we are seeing more and more reductions in 
transit subsidies, bus routes are being cut, the fares are going up. 
People are actually written out of jobs because they cannot get to 
them.
  But let me just make one further point to my colleague, and then I 
will yield the floor to him. All of this is not really that 
complicated. You hear the same arguments every time. Oh, if you raise 
the minimum wage, all those kids in the work force or who want to come 
into the work force are going to be denied jobs. But the truth is, we 
are not talking about kids. We are talking about adults. More than 70 
percent of the people working on minimum wage are adults. More than 
two-thirds of them are women. These are working families that are 
affected here.
  The argument is made that, oh, we are going to lose jobs if we raise 
that minimum wage. Well, there are at least 12 studies, several of them 
in the last couple of years, that refute that argument. A couple of 
these studies were done in New Jersey because New Jersey raised its 
minimum wage. You heard all the same arguments about New Jersey. And 
New Jersey experienced an increase in jobs.
  Can anyone look around America in any year in which we have raised 
the minimum wage and say that doing so held us back--that it hurt our 
economy or cost us jobs? Can you look around this country and suggest 
that we have not created more jobs and raised people's incomes while we 
provided that income floor which guaranteed that American workers are 
not going to be exploited?
  Mr. President, let us be honest about the history of what happened in 
our Nation. Go back and read the ``Grapes of Wrath.'' Go back through 
the history of the labor movement. Are we going to pretend that the 
gains for America's workers came spontaneously? Did they come out of 
the goodness of the hearts of managers or owners of the coal mines or 
the steel mills or the railroads of this Nation? No.
  Everybody knows the sacrifices that the labor movement had to make, 
and that people lost their lives. People were shut out, people were 
starved, people were hit over the head, knees were broken. People were 
killed because workers had to fight for the right to be able to get a 
decent wage. There was even a time, believe it or not--how amazing--
when people had to strike because they thought that they should not 
work more than 8 hours a day. Remember the exploitation of child labor? 
Remember the various diseases, the inhumane working conditions?
  So through the years we have reached a point in America where we 
thought we had a fundamental understanding about what was fair. Now you 
have people working at the minimum wage who are earning only three-
quarters or half the level of poverty for their families. And we have a 
party that believes that those of us elected to try to make these 
choices in Washington should not have the right on the floor of the 
Senate to have an up-or-down vote on a proposal to increase that 
minimum wage. It is very simple. In this body, 51 votes is the measure 
of what we do. In this case, 51 votes is the measure of whether 
Americans working at the minimum wage will receive a raise.
  The chief executive officers of this country have not had a hard time 
getting raises. When 40,000 people are laid off at AT&T, the stock goes 
up and the chief executive can walk away with millions of dollars in 
additional compensation. What happens to those workers who were the 
victims of the downsizing? Well, maybe they have a skill level where 
they will break into another job. But for those people at the very 
bottom rung of the ladder, they are not going to have a chance to reach 
the next rung, or even to stay on the bottom rung, unless we lift their 
living standard and give them a raise.
  When one examines the ratio of salaries of chief executive officers 
to salaries of their companies' wage earners, the ratio has moved from 
50 to 1, where it remained for decades in this country, to over several 
hundred to one today. It just seems incomprehensible to me, Mr. 
President, that we should be even debating whether we should give the 
workers on the bottom rung of the ladder a raise, especially when the 
purchasing power of their current wage is at a 40-year low. That is 
what this is all about. I hope that our colleagues will join with us in 
our traditional bipartisan approach on this issue and raise the minimum 
wage in this country.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.

[[Page S2852]]

                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege 
of the floor be granted to Paul Mazur during the duration of the debate 
on this bill
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would like to thank both my colleagues from Massachusetts. Let me 
just get back to basics. This amendment that I thought we were going to 
lay down this morning is simple and straightforward. It would increase 
the minimum wage, the Federal minimum wage from the current $4.25 an 
hour to $5.15 an hour over the next 2 years. That is all. Mr. 
President, 90 cents over 2 years, no indexing to adjust for the cost of 
living, no other things to complicate the debate.

  A straightforward proposition--raise the Federal minimum wage from 
$4.25 an hour for working families in our country, to $5.15 an hour 
over 2 years, and 90 cents over 2 years. For some reason my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, at least as of this morning, do not 
want us to be able to lay this amendment out on the floor of the Senate 
and have the debate and vote for it up or down.
  I would just say to my colleagues, that this is simple, this is 
straightforward. My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, talked 
about CEO salaries. Let me just be blunt. The U.S. House of 
Representatives and the U.S. Senate sure as heck voted themselves a 
huge raise, an increase from about $100,000 a few years ago to $130,000 
a year. I heard my colleagues tell me that, you know, you have kids in 
college and there is additional expenses and all of the rest.
  Fair enough. But if the U.S. Senate can vote for a salary increase 
from $100,000 to $130,000 a year--and the House took the action 
earlier--do you not think it is about time we are willing to raise the 
minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour over 2 years? Do you 
not think it is about time that we would be willing to raise the 
minimum wage by 90 cents over 2 years?
  Mr. President, I do not know what the majority leader plans on doing. 
But it does seem to me that we have now reached the point where 
regardless of the strategies and regardless of whatever parliamentary 
ruling there might be, it is going to be very difficult for Senators to 
essentially finesse this issue. Because while we are putting off the 
debate, at least for the moment, there are many Americans who have to 
live with this minimum wage. We are putting the debate off on the 
minimum wage this morning, while many Americans have to live with it. 
For 200,000 working people and their families in Minnesota, this is an 
extremely important issue.
  Later on, Mr. President, when we get to the debate, I will talk about 
people. I do not want it to be abstract. But let me just tell you, 
whether it is a single parent working or whether it is two parents 
working, this debate about the minimum wage, this effort to raise the 
minimum wage, is absolutely key toward providing people with a ladder 
to get into the middle class. This is a fundamental economic justice 
question. I will just say one more time, I came to the floor about 
10:30. I thought we had an understanding that we would go forward with 
this amendment.
  My hope is that after the caucuses meet at lunch we will be able to 
do so, that we will be able to lay down our amendment, that we will 
have debate on this amendment, and that Senators will be accountable, 
Democrats and Republicans alike. Because I will tell you; in Minnesota, 
the cafe discussion is whether or not your children are going to be 
able to find jobs at a decent wage. The cafe discussion is whether or 
not you can pay your mortgage payment or whether you can pay your rent. 
The cafe discussion is whether you can afford to send your kids to 
college. The cafe discussion is on the economic squeeze that families 
feel.
  The vast majority of people in Minnesota and the vast majority of 
people all across this country want to see us take action on this.
  I say one more time, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of 
Representatives did not seem to have any problem in voting ourselves a 
huge pay increase. Do you not think it is about time we vote for a pay 
increase for working families in this country, and set some kind of 
decent, humane, compassionate minimum wage floor for working men and 
women and their children?
  That is what this is about. I do not think anybody is going to be 
able to hide from this debate. I do not think there is going to be any 
way of maneuvering around this debate. I am just speaking for myself. I 
am not even speaking for my two colleagues from Massachusetts. But I 
intend to be a part of this effort to introduce this amendment over and 
over and over again.

  You cannot duck. You cannot hide. It is an important economic issue. 
It is an important economic opportunity issue. It is all about working 
men and women and their children. It is all about economic justice. It 
is all about fairness. And it is time we get serious about these kinds 
of issues in the U.S. Senate. I hope this afternoon after lunch we will 
have the opportunity to lay down our amendment and then we will have 
this debate. Then we will have a positive, affirmative vote for working 
men, women, and children in the State of Minnesota. Mr. President, I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the time is divided. I am just 
wondering--I want to have a few more moments for a statement I want to 
make between now and 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, his side has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, why we wanted to have the opportunity to 
address this issue is because, as this chart shows, between 1979 and 
1993, this shows what has happened to real family income during this 
period of time.
  This body is familiar with what happened before 1979 from the postwar 
period from 1949 up to 1979. Virtually each of these columns all moved 
up together up to about 100 percent improvement in the family income 
growth. Virtually at every level of the economy everyone moved up 
together. We have gone through that in other debates on the minimum 
wage and we may have a chance, if there is a challenge to this, to go 
into that in some greater detail.
  But what we have now seen is 1979-93, the bottom fifth of the 
population has seen a real loss of 17 percent. I am always interested 
in how we evaluate what has happened in the median, where the median 
is. If you take the median as for the highest wages and the highest 
profits and the highest growth of the wealthiest families and the least 
you come out somewhere in the middle.
  But the fact of the matter is that is not a good indication of what 
is happening to those on the bottom rung of the ladder. They are the 
ones that have fallen furthest behind from 1990 to 1993. This is the 
group which would be most affected and most helped and assisted with 
the increase in the minimum wage. It would be modest. It amounts to 
about $3.4 billion that would go to that particular group.
  We will hear a lot about this is very inflationary. That is $3.4 
billion in a $5 trillion economy. That is $3.4 billion in a $5 trillion 
economy. And they are going to talk about, well, it is inflation and it 
is going to set off all of the economy? This demonstrates what is out 
there in terms of our colleagues who are working in America.
  The ones that are being affected by the minimum wage, as has been 
pointed out, are the ones that are working full time, 40 hours a week, 
52 weeks of the year. This chart shows what the real minimum wage is. 
That is in the purchasing power. This continues to go. It will be the 
lowest it was since 1989.
  In 1989, as has been pointed out in this debate, at that level, of 
Republicans and Democrats, there were only nine Members of the U.S. 
Senate in 1989 that voted against it. And 32 Members of the Republican 
Party voted for this increase. George Bush voted for that increase. 
Effectively we are right back down to--Bob Dole voted for the increase. 
We are right back to that level now. Plus, I think most would 
understand that the economy is stronger

[[Page S2853]]

today than it was at that particular time.
  Mr. President, this chart shows what is happening. The Dow-Jones 
average, inflation adjusted, goes right up through the roof. Here it 
is. It breaks through the roof. This is what is happening with the 
stock market, the Dow-Jones average, right up through the roof. The 
real minimum wage, inflation adjusted, the small increase here with the 
90-cent increase, right back down again. And what we are talking about 
with this amendment would be a 90-cent increase over the next 2 years.
  Mr. President, as has been pointed out, these are the individuals who 
are affected--16 to 19 years is 31 percent; over 20 years of age, 70 
percent. We are talking about adults; 70 percent of the individuals are 
over 20 years of age.
  Mr. President, this is an indication, again, as I mentioned briefly, 
about who in our society is going to be impacted. Men represent 40 
percent of the wage earners from $4.25 to $5.14. These are the wage 
earners that would be impacted by this increase. Again, 60 percent 
would be women. Many of them are single women. Many of them have 
children. That is why I believe that this is not just----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself the final 30 seconds.
  Is not just a workers' issue; it is a women's issue and a child's 
issue.
  Mr. President, we will have the opportunity to go on and show about 
what the impact has been on inflation and employment since the end of 
World War II. We are glad to debate this issue, to take on issues and 
go through them and let the Senate vote its will.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we will have that opportunity when the 
legislation is going to come up under what was agreed to last evening 
to be recognized. We will offer this amendment. We hope that we will be 
able to work out an agreeable format so that we can have a real debate 
on the issue and then have a final vote, find out who is on the side of 
working families in this country.
  My time has expired. I understand the remaining time will be 
available to the Members of the other party and we will be back here at 
2:15 to continue this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor for the 
purpose of discussing this issue, but having listened to this 
discussion, I do want to remark on the bizarre nature of an argument 
which emphasized so strongly the outrage of the last three Senators in 
not being permitted to debate an issue which they were, of course, 
debating, on which they will place an amendment, when each of those 
three Senators has been visibly engaged in the last 4 weeks in 
preventing the Senate from voting on an appropriations bill for the 
District of Columbia with all of the positive impact that has on poor 
people, law enforcement, and education in the District, and by 
foolishly engaging at the same time in filibustering an attempt to 
bring to conclusion--to extend and bring to conclusion--the Whitewater 
investigation. We have not been permitted to debate these issues on 
their merits or to vote on their merits. For the life of me, I do not 
understand how that differs from the objection they are making today, 
particularly since they will, of course, be able to bring up such an 
amendment and have a debate on it.
  I also point out, they neglected to state that all of their examples 
relate to some 10 or 15 percent, a very small percentage, of minimum-
wage people who are the primary supporters for their families, and that 
a proposal that would obviously benefit that small handful of people 
will have a terribly damaging effect on first jobs for teenager and 
welfare recipients attempting to build new lives and living for 
themselves.
  The compassion for those people, at the beginning of their careers, 
seem to be remarkably absent in the debate we have heard so far.

                          ____________________