[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 99 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7345-S7355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, tomorrow, July 9, is minimum wage day in 
the U.S. Senate. The Senate will finally have an up-or-down vote on a 
fair increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage has been stuck at 
its

[[Page S7346]]

current level of $4.25 an hour for some 5 years. The increase that we 
propose to $5.15 an hour should have gone into effect at least a year 
ago. But for 18 months Republicans refused to allow this Senate to 
vote.
  Now the long overdue vote is about to take place, but the Republican 
obstruction has not ended. Opponents of the minimum wage have devised a 
shameless trick to prevent as much of the increase as possible, by 
delaying it and by denying it to large numbers of deserving American 
workers.
  The Republican amendment is a sham. It purports to raise the minimum 
wage from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour, but in fact it will deny that 
increase to most Americans who would otherwise receive it. To 
paraphrase the words of a country and western song, ``One step forward, 
two steps back, you don't get a raise with a trick like that.''
  Under our Democratic proposal, more than 13 million Americans will 
receive a raise when the minimum wage bill is passed. Under the 
Republican amendment, most of these workers would never see that raise. 
First, the Republican amendment exempts more than 4 million workers, 
almost half of all the minimum wage workers earning between $4.25 and 
$5.15 an hour, by creating a permanent subminimum wage for the first 6 
months on the job.
  Second, the Republican amendment exempts two-thirds of all workers 
eligible for the increase by exempting the 10 million workers and 
businesses with annual sales of less than $500,000 a year.
  Third, the Republican amendment exempts the 2 million employees in 
restaurants and other establishments who rely on tips for part of that 
income.
  These three exemptions clearly overlap. Some workers will be caught 
by all three exemptions. The Republicans have left no stone unturned in 
their cynical attempt to find as many ways as possible to deny a fair 
increase in the minimum wage to as many American workers as possible. 
But Republicans are not even satisfied with these massive exemptions. 
They also want to delay the increase in the minimum wage for anyone who 
still qualifies to receive it.
  As one more insult to American workers, the Republican amendment 
would delay the increase by 6 more months, until January 1997. No 
increase at all for anyone in 1996 is the last line of defense for 
Republicans in their unseemly battle against the minimum wage.
  So, President Clinton is correct to say, as he did in his veto letter 
of June 28, 1996, that he will veto a minimum wage increase that 
contains any of these Republican tricks.
  Make no mistake, a vote for the Bond amendment is a vote to kill the 
minimum wage increase for now and for the foreseeable future. That is 
the strategy of the Republicans and their right-wing allies.
  The National Retail Federation has mounted a campaign in support of 
the Republican amendment. They sent out an action alert last week, in 
which they abandon any pretense that the Republican amendment is 
anything other than an attempt to kill the minimum wage increase. The 
Republican amendment, they say, ``is our last chance and best hope for 
stopping the minimum wage increase this year.''
  Mr. President, I will include it all in the Record. On page 1, the 
bottom of page 1, it says, ``It is our last chance and best hope for 
stopping the minimum wage increase this year,'' to support the Bond 
amendment. Then it lists a number of the Senators who should be 
targeted by their organization.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter and list be printed at this point 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       National Retail Federation


                               memorandum

     To: Government and Legal Affairs Committee, National 
         Association Executives.
     From: John J. Motley III, Senior Vice President, Government 
         and Public Affairs.
     Re action needed on minimum wage.
     Date: July 1, 1996.
       Attached for your review and use is an action alert 
     describing the current situation with the minimum wage 
     increase in the U.S. Senate.
       The Senate will vote on the minimum wage increase on July 
     9. NRF is working to pass the Bond amendment and defeat the 
     Kennedy amendment.
       For those of you with operations in the targeted states--
     Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, 
     South Dakota, and Vermont--any help you could lend getting 
     Senators to support the Bond amendment would be much 
     appreciated. NRF members and the state retail association 
     executives based in the target states have already received a 
     copy of the action alert.
       The vote will be close. If more than two Republicans vote 
     against Bond and not one Democrat votes for it, we cannot 
     win.
       Passing the Bond amendment is probably our best change to 
     kill the minimum wage increase. If you have any questions, 
     please contact me or Kent Knutson at (202) 783-7971. Many 
     thanks.
       Several Senators are undecided on the Bond amendment and 
     need to hear from you. The vote will be extremely close, so 
     please take a minute to call, FAX, or write and urge them to 
     vote for the Bond amendment and against the Kennedy 
     amendment.

                   SENATORS WHO NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State and Senator                    Phone           Fax   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas:                                                               
    Dale Bumpers..........................    (202) 224-4843    224-6435
    David Pryor...........................    (202) 224-2353    228-3973
Colorado: Ben Nighthorse Campbell.........    (202) 224-5852    224-1933
Maine:                                                                  
    Bill Cohen............................    (202) 224-2523    224-2693
    Olympia Snowe.........................    (202) 224-5344    224-1946
Nebraska:                                                               
    Bob Kerrey............................    (202) 224-6551    224-7645
    Jim Exon..............................    (202) 224-4224    224-5213
New York: Alfonse D'Amato.................    (202) 224-6542    224-5871
Pennsylvania:                                                           
    Arlen Specter.........................    (202) 224-4254    228-1229
    Rick Santorum.........................    (202) 224-6324    228-0604
South Dakota: Larry Pressler..............    (202) 224-5842    228-0368
Vermont: Jim Jeffords.....................    (202) 224-5141    228-1932
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Please send a copy of any correspondence to NRF, Attention: 
     Grassroots Department at fax (202) 737-2849.
       Don't hesitate to call if you have any questions at (202) 
     783-7971. Thanks so much for your help.

  Mr. KENNEDY. So the battle lines are clearly drawn.
  I urge the Senate to stand with American working families, not 
against them. I urge the Senate to stand for the basic principle that 
the minimum wage should be a living wage; that no American who works 
for a living should have to live in poverty.
  Tomorrow's vote will be one of the most important votes in the U.S. 
Senate this year. Millions of hard-working men and women are struggling 
to lift themselves out of poverty and provide a decent life for their 
families. They are looking to us for hope and help, and it is time for 
them to get a raise.
  Our Democratic proposal would raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour 
in two 45-cent steps. The first step would take place as of July 4 this 
year, and I mention, Mr. President, that is in the legislation, but, 
obviously, since that date has passed, with the passage of our 
amendment, it is hoped that in conference we can delay the 
implementation of that for 30 days after the President signs. That will 
give a reasonable period of time for it to be implemented and 
reasonable notification to those who are going to have to pay it.
  As of that date, the minimum wage would be $4.70 an hour. The second 
part of the increase, to $5.15, would take place on July 4 next year. 
Raising the minimum wage is critical for millions of low-wage workers 
who are directly affected by it, and it is critical for the economy as 
a whole.
  The widening income gap is a worsening problem in the United States, 
and the declining purchasing power of the minimum wage is a significant 
problem.
  Mr. President, this chart shows how America grew from 1950 to 1978--
``Growing Together, Real Family Income Growth by Quintile.'' What we 
see is those at the bottom level of the economic ladder actually grew 
138 percent. They grew more than any other sector of our economy. The 
second quintile at 98 percent; the third at 106 percent; the fourth at 
111 percent; and the top 20 percent at 99 percent. All America grew 
together, and if there was any answer, it was that all Americans were 
playing by the rules, working hard providing for their families, which 
was part of the whole American growth pattern.
  But look what has happened since. This first chart represents 1950 to 
1978. Now on this second chart, we have from 1979 to 1994. This chart 
reflects real family income growth by quintile, but it is growing 
apart. The largest continuing growth has been on the top 20 percent, 
and if you went to the top 5 percent, you would see that percent of 
growth even higher. If you went to the top 1 percent, the wealthiest 
individuals and corporations, you would see that those numbers would go 
up even higher.

[[Page S7347]]

  What has happened is, on the bottom 20 percent, you see the real 
family income had an actual decline of 11 percent from 1979 to 1994. 
This does not represent what I think most Americans expect, hope for, 
and think is fair. What they expect is that all Americans will grow and 
participate in an expanding economy. Quite to the contrary. We see 
those who are on the bottom 20 percent have seen the most serious 
decline in family income. It is in this particular group that the 
minimum wage workers are most adversely affected.
  Since 1979, 97 percent of the increase in real household income has 
gone to the wealthiest 20 percent of American families, while only 3 
percent has gone to the other 80 percent. The real family income of 
most American families has declined since 1979, while the real income 
of the top 20 percent of families grew by 18 percent. Part of the 
decline in income for working families has been caused by the drop in 
the purchasing power of the minimum wage, which has fallen almost 30 
percent since 1979. It is worth 50 cents an hour less today than when 
it was last raised in 1991.

  Mr. President, this chart reflects the declining real value of the 
minimum wage over the period from 1960 up to 1995. What we see is the 
real purchasing value. It has been gradually increasing at the lower 
levels, which I will get to in a few moments. But this chart represents 
the real minimum wage, from 1960 to 1995, and going back to 1969, 1970 
in purchasing power, it would be $6.45 today instead of $4.25. That is 
a $2 spread in purchasing power for working families, not to families 
who are on welfare, but working families who want to keep off welfare. 
They are playing by the rules: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year.
  Effectively, they have taken a significant cut in their purchasing 
power, from $6.45 down to what it would be now at $4.25. This 
represents the declining value of the purchasing power for families. In 
1991, the last time the minimum wage was increased, we got a slight 
blip and now it has gone right back down, at the present time, even 
below where it was in 1989.
  Incredibly, the economy today is a great deal stronger than it was in 
1989. Still, in 1989, we have had not only virtually all of the 
Democrats voting for an increase in the minimum wage, but we had 
Republicans as well. We had Republicans as well. Senator Dole voted for 
an increase. Speaker Gingrich at that time voted for the increase in 
the minimum wage when our economy was not as strong.
  Now we find the purchasing power is right back to where it was in 
1989. The economy is a great deal stronger, and we have been seeing the 
complete opposition by the leadership of the House of Representatives 
that said we will not give an opportunity to vote on an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  Finally, the American people spoke about that issue, and finally, 
reluctantly, the House of Representatives increased the minimum wage 
with some courageous Republicans who supported it.
  Now, after over a year of trying to get a vote on the minimum wage by 
attaching it, or threatening to attach it, to any of the different 
pieces of legislation that came along, we are now in a position where 
we will get an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage, not just to 
vote on increasing the minimum wage, which has been the tradition, 
historic tradition of the increases in minimum wage, but we will vote 
on a proposal of our Republican friends that I described earlier that 
on the one hand would appear to give the increase in the minimum wage, 
but, on the other hand clearly takes it back.
  So that, Mr. President, is how we find this debate, both today and 
tomorrow, and why we believe that it is so important that Americans 
will let their Members of Congress know again that working families 
ought to be entitled to an increase in the minimum wage to, not even 
bring the working families out of poverty, but at least give them about 
$1,800 more, which is a good deal more income for families. It would 
reflect about a 22- or 23-percent increase in their wages, enough to 
support groceries for 7 months of the year, probably pay for tuition 
for 1 year for a son or daughter to attend the college in their home 
State, and so on, probably the premium for some health insurance 
programs that they may be able to provide either for their children, 
perhaps for themselves. It represents a very significant and important 
increase for those who are working.
  Mr. President, as a nation, we are moving, as I mentioned, farther 
and farther away from the fundamental principle that honest work should 
pay an honest wage, and full-time, year-round workers should be able to 
keep their families out of poverty. Today a nurse's aide, a janitor, a 
child care worker--Mr. President, that is what we are talking about, 
those who are making the minimum wage.
  We will have an opportunity to put some names and, hopefully, some 
faces and some lives out here in the course of this debate in the next 
couple of days. But basically they are teachers' aides, those who are 
working with the children in our classrooms all over this country, 
increasingly challenged by all of the challenges which are there in the 
schools of our Nation, trying to provide help and assistance to a 
teacher so a teacher can teach.
  They are nurses' aides and health care workers. Some are in those 
schools. Health care workers are primarily, perhaps, in nursing homes 
who are looking after parents to make sure that those parents are going 
to be treated fairly and decently, taking care of them, washing them, 
feeding them, changing them, some of the most difficult, trying work 
that anyone could ask for in this country. They do it and do it well 
and do it with a sense of respect and decency.
  They are janitors who, long after men and women who are in the major 
companies and corporations in the buildings of this Nation go home for 
the day, they are in there, after dark, and spend many long hours into 
the evening cleaning up those buildings and may be lucky enough to get 
home before their kids go out and go to school in the morning, to see 
them for a few hours.
  Mr. President, these are the men and women who are doing the tough, 
difficult work that is out there in America to be done. They do it with 
pride and dignity. They do it to provide for their families, for their 
loved ones. We evidently are coming to the point where we may have an 
opportunity to see some increase, and we are faced with Republican 
opposition to undermine the very modest increase.
  This is a modest increase, Mr. President. When we first introduced 
what is the legislation that we will be voting on, we wanted it 3 years 
at 50 cents, and a cost-of-living increase. That does not seem to me to 
be enormously radical. It would probably bring this back up to here in 
terms of the purchasing power of the minimum wage. But now we are back 
to 45 cents--45 cents--and for 2 years without the cost-of-living 
increase. And we are facing opposition for that very, very modest, 
modest increase.
  So today, Mr. President, a nurse's aide, a janitor, a child care 
worker, anyone else who makes a minimum wage earns just $8,800 for 52 
weeks of work at 40 hours a week, more than $6,000 below the poverty 
level for a family of four. According to the old saying, ``The rich get 
richer; the poor get poorer.'' But that should not be the Nation's 
economic policy.
  Today, one out of every nine families with a full-time worker lives 
in poverty without enough money to feed and clothe their children and 
keep a roof over their heads. Rich America is getting richer. The stock 
market may be sputtering, but the increase has gone to more than 400 
percent since 1992. Real wages have declined by 15 percent. As the 
values of Wall Street have soared, the values of Main Street have 
fallen farther and farther behind.
  Mr. President, this chart indicates again the comparison, using one 
indicator, and that is what is happening on Wall Street. I know there 
are other indicators; we can get into those as well. But what we have 
seen is the enormous growth, adjusted to inflation, in what has 
happened in the Dow Jones industrial average over the period from 1979 
through 1995. What has happened to the minimum wage? Here are hard-
working workers who are doing the difficult jobs that need to be done, 
and here we see the Dow Jones industrial average going up and 
continuing to go up.

  In the Senate, we have given ourselves three pay increases since the 
last increase in the minimum wage in 1991. Congressional pay raises 
have totaled $31,000, a 31-percent increase. The

[[Page S7348]]

bill before the Senate calls for 90 cents in the minimum wage over the 
next 2 years, a 22-percent increase.
  Mr. President, it is time to support those who work for a living 
instead of living off welfare. I must say, Mr. President, that if you 
want to talk about real welfare reform, it is increasing the minimum 
wage. Let us get people who can work and want to work back to work and 
give them a livable wage. An interesting fact, Mr. President, is that 
if you get this increase in the minimum wage, you see the savings in 
the safety net. You see significant, hundreds of millions of dollars of 
reductions in payments of AFDC, you see hundreds of millions of dollars 
of reductions in the Medicaid Program, in the Food Stamp Program.
  You have more than 300,000 children who would come out of poverty; 
well over 100,000 families coming out of poverty; they will not be 
eligible for those expenditures. That is only with a very modest 
increase in the minimum wage. Why should the Federal taxpayer be paying 
in to a fund that supports these safety-net programs to subsidize those 
who are not paying a fair wage? That is what this is about, too; 
subsidizing many of those companies that refuse to provide a livable 
wage. They are getting subsidization for their workers with the other 
safety-net programs. Those safety-net programs were never devised for 
that particular purpose. If you provide this modest increase in the 
minimum wage, you are going to be saving the taxpayers an additional 
amount.
  I believe the overpowering and overwhelming argument is that we ought 
to have a basic standard of fairness and justice in our economy. The 
economy ought to move in a way that is not going to serve just the 
wealthiest individuals but is going to serve all Americans. That is 
what this country ought to be about and what it is about when it is at 
its best. These hard-working Americans deserve this kind of assurance 
that they are going to be able to provide for their families.
  But if you do not like that argument and you are only persuaded, as 
so many apparently are in this body, by what is going to be actually 
expended in terms of the taxpayers, this is a good bargain for those 
individuals as well.
  Mr. President, what we are talking about here are 13 million 
Americans who will receive a pay increase from this legislation--13 
million Americans.
  Mr. President, we hear often on this floor that the best way to get 
any increase for working Americans is to insist on the balanced budget 
amendment. I support a balanced budget, not with the priorities that 
have been outlined by our Republican friends. But that is a debate for 
a different time. But the interesting fact remains, Mr. President, that 
if our Republican friends were able to get the balanced budget 
amendment through, according to their own CBO, it would mean a one-half 
of 1 percent increase in the income of those 13 million workers who are 
working at a minimum wage level--one-half of 1 percent.
  This minimum wage program which we support will amount to a 4 percent 
increase for the 40 percent of the lowest income American workers. We 
can do that virtually by adopting this particular program that has 
passed the House of Representatives and will be before the U.S. Senate 
tomorrow. This can make an important difference--an important 
difference--to the real income of working families as compared to what 
we are asked to do by our Republican friends saying, ``Well, let's just 
go ahead and balance the budget. That will reflect itself in greater 
opportunities for those workers.'' Even their own figures do not 
justify that position.

  Mr. President, as many as 2.3 million children live in poor or near-
poor families where workers will get a raise. This is a children's 
issue. This is a children's issue. Of this, 1.52 million are living in 
families with just one breadwinner. We will probably even hear in the 
debate that this really is not an important issue because it only 
affects the 10, 13 million Americans in a work force of 129, 130 
million Americans. It is enormously important to those children, the 
million and a half of those children whose whole position is being 
threatened now in the cuts in the Medicaid Program, the transfer, the 
reduction in immunization and all of the screening programs that are 
out there, when we know that two-thirds of the children on Medicaid 
have parents who are working.
  I do not understand what it is with our Republican friends, what they 
have against children of working families. But that is the fact of the 
impact of many of these cuts, both in the Medicaid Program, the 
education program, and the opposition to the increase in the minimum 
wage. It is callous. It is wrong. But, nonetheless, we are faced with 
it. We will have an opportunity tomorrow to make a judgment whether we 
are going to stand with the children, the needy children, the poor 
children that did not, as a matter of choice, choose to grow up in a 
household where their families are making the minimum wage at this 
time.
  Mr. KYL assumed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Now, Mr. President, this is not only children, but this 
is also about women in our society. The greatest percent are women; 64 
or 65 percent of the minimum wage workers are women in our society. 
Seven million women and more than 5 million adult women will receive a 
fair raise if the minimum wage is increased.
  Who are the 5 million adult women? Two million are single heads of 
households with at least one dependent. They are raising families, 
caring for children, trying to get by on a poverty-level wage. It is 
time for them to get a raise.
  Mr. President, 60 percent of minimum wage workers are married. They 
contribute an average of 51 percent of family earnings. We are not 
talking about teenagers earning pocket money. We will hear talk about 
that later this afternoon, I am sure. We are talking about people whose 
families depend on them for their survival and well-being. It is time 
for them to get a raise.
  The large numbers of minimum wage workers who are women work in 
hospitals, food services, and restaurants, where they work as cashiers, 
clean hotel rooms and work in laundries. Their jobs are hard, but they 
perform them with dignity and commitment, and do the best they can to 
provide for their families. It is time for them to get a raise.
  An additional large number of minimum wage earners who are women work 
directly with children in child care and as teachers aides. They 
deserve more respect for the care that they give the Nation's children, 
the 52 million children, that are in our K through 12 across this 
Nation. With all the challenges that they are facing, it is time they 
get a raise.
  Another major industry that employs large numbers of women just above 
the minimum wage is in the health care area, especially the occupations 
of nurses' aides, home care aides. They are some of the most difficult 
jobs in our society, caring for the sick and the helpless, washing 
them, feeding them, cleaning their bedpans. It is time they get a 
raise.
  What will the minimum wage increase mean for a family living in 
poverty? We mentioned what it means in groceries, what it means in 
health care costs, including prescription drugs, out-of-pocket 
expenses, utility bills or basic housing costs lasting for a period of 
some 4 months. All of that has been mentioned.
  Mr. President, a point that we will hear, I am sure, later this 
afternoon, ``We are opposed because they really are the wealthy 
teenagers that are involved in this program. They are not really people 
involved in the minimum wage.'' We will also hear, as I have already 
heard during the course of this debate, that question about whether 
this increase in the minimum wage helps minorities in the workplace.
  Based on census data of 1.5 million African-Americans between $4.25 
and $5.15 an hour, 17 percent of all hourly African American workers 
are making that minimum wage. One million are women. Raising the 
minimum wage will provide a modest increase for the poorest African-
Americans raising children and struggling to survive. It is time for 
them to get a raise.
  I hope those opposed to our position will minimize the amount of time 
they spend on this issue as being the great defenders of minorities. We 
heard that all the time in all the past debates.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record several 
excellent letters referencing the minimum wage.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S7349]]


         National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
           People,
                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
     Re Fair Minimum Wage.
       Dear Senator: I am writing to you today on behalf of the 
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
     (NAACP), the nation's oldest and largest civil rights 
     organization, in strong support of a fair minimum wage. 
     Specifically, the NAACP seeks the swift passage of ``The 
     Working Wage Increase Act of 1995'' (S.413). We have been 
     informed that this bill may be scheduled for a Senate floor 
     vote later this week.
       This important legislation provides for an increase in the 
     current minimum wage by 90 cents an hour, to $5.15, over two 
     years. It is clearly a step in the right direction to improve 
     the income and the quality of living for all Americans 
     through an increase in the minimum wage. This is particularly 
     true for African Americans, who disproportionately constitute 
     a large segment of minimum wage earners with below poverty 
     level incomes.
       Legislation increasing the minimum wage is a measure long 
     overdue for hardworking Americans who are desperately trying 
     to make ends meet. The real value of the minimum wage is at a 
     forty year low. The minimum wage was first set at 25 cents an 
     hour in 1938 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 
     Moreover, Congress last raised the minimum wage with bi-
     partisan support in 1989 from $3.35 an hour to $4.25 an hour 
     over two years.
       In addition to the merits of arguments supporting an 
     increased minimum wage, the NAACP also believes that this 
     initiative fits squarely into the welfare reform debate. The 
     NAACP supports meaningful welfare reform. We believe that 
     meaningful welfare reform includes elements that encourage 
     and support work; that hold both parents responsible for the 
     economic support of their children; and that move poor 
     families from dependency to economic self-sufficiency.
       The NAACP maintains that Senators who are calling for 
     welfare reform should back efforts to increase the minimum 
     wage since, as a practical matter, the current minimum wage 
     is a disincentive to working and an incentive to remaining on 
     welfare.
       For all of these reasons, we strongly urge you to vote in 
     favor of S.413 when it advances to a Senate floor vote in the 
     next few days. Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Wade Henderson,
     Director.
                                                                    ____



                                  National Urban League, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The National Urban League believes that 
     raising the minimum wage is an eminently sensible step. It 
     would mean affirming a pro-work, pro-family stance that 
     should be welcomed by all who believe work should be rewarded 
     and that ways must be found to boost the eroding incomes of 
     low-wage workers. The Senate can take immediate action by 
     passing the legislation that would raise the minimum wage 
     from its current level of $4.25 to $5.15 an hour over two 
     years.
       The prevailing minimum wage has now reached its lowest 
     level in 40 years. Erosion of the minimum wage is a major 
     factor in the sharp decline in the living standards of the 
     poorest families. A person who works full time--40 hours per 
     week, 50 weeks per year--at the current Federal minimum wage 
     brings home only $8,500 for an entire year's work.
       Contrary to the assumption that the prime beneficiaries 
     would be affluent teenagers, studies reveal that only a tenth 
     of minimum wage workers are teenagers in families with above 
     average incomes. The typical minimum wage worker is an adult 
     woman who works full time or more than twenty hours weekly. 
     Seventy-six percent of the benefits of the increased minimum 
     wage would go to families with below average incomes. And 
     over a fourth of those low wage workers are black and 
     Hispanic, therefore the impact of a higher minimum wage would 
     have an immediate impact on minority purchasing power.
       Raising the minimum wage should get bipartisan support as a 
     way to help poor families raise their living standards and as 
     a way to close the income gap that threatens American ideals 
     of fairness and equality.
       Sincerely,

                                                Hugh B. Price,

                                               President and Chief
     Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____

                                                  National Hispana


                                         Leadership Institute,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 18, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The National Hispana Leadership Institute 
     represents over 200 professional Hispanic women from 
     throughout the United States who are leaders in their 
     communities. These women are directors of non-profit and 
     government agencies, political appointees, elected officials 
     and corporate employees.
       I am writing on their behalf in support of the minimum wage 
     increase to $5.15 over the next two years. Statistics 
     indicate that: (1) six out of ten workers earning the minimum 
     wage or less are women, (2) overall, more than half of low-
     wage women workers are mothers; of these nearly half are the 
     sole wage earners in their families, (3) in 1995, a single 
     mother with two children earning the minimum wage, full-time, 
     year round earned $8,840 annually, 27 percent below the 
     poverty line for a family of three. The statistics noted here 
     are even worse for Hispanic women.
       It is time that this country began to take care of its 
     families and children. Corporate profits and the salaries of 
     CEO's continue to rise while Americans are laid off work, 
     employee benefits cut and government services curtailed. The 
     gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase; the 
     rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What does that mean 
     for the future of our country?
       I urge you to vote in favor of the minimum wage increase.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                       Nancy Leon,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                             Leadership Conference


                                              on Civil Rights,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a 
     coalition of 180 national organizations representing 
     minorities, women, persons with disabilities, older 
     Americans, labor, gays and lesbians, religious groups, and 
     minority businesses and professions, would like to express 
     its strong support for legislation that would raise the 
     minimum wage to $5.15 per hour.
       As you know, Congress enacted the minimum wage to protect 
     working families against poverty. However, a single mother 
     with two children who works full time at $4.25 per hour will 
     find that her family remains trapped nearly 30 percent below 
     the federal poverty level. Thus, a permanent underclass is 
     maintained. It is incumbent upon the United States Congress 
     to raise the minimum wage and improve the quality of life for 
     low income workers.
       A minimum wage increase would benefit many American 
     workers. More than 12 million workers would benefit directly 
     if Congress raised the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour, and 
     several million more who earn slightly more than $5.15 per 
     hour would experience an increase from the ripple effect that 
     results when the minimum wage is raised.
       The last minimum wage increase in 1989 received strong 
     bipartisan support. The Senate passed the increase by a vote 
     of 89 to 8, and the House by a vote of 382 to 37. It was 
     signed into law by President Bush.
       The Leadership Conference strongly urges you to vote for 
     legislation to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour.
           Sincerely,
     Richard Womack,
       Acting Executive Director.
     Dorothy I. Height,
       Chairperson.
                                                                    ____

         Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1996.
       Dear Senator: The time has come to raise the minimum wage 
     to a living wage. On behalf of the Mexican American Legal 
     Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), I urge your support of 
     S. 413, a proposal to raise the minimum wage to protect the 
     nation's working families.
       Today's minimum wage is at its lowest value in forty years. 
     During this time, the purchasing power of the minimum wage 
     has fallen to its second lowest level. The effect has been 
     devastating to many American families, but particularly worse 
     for Latinos. Because Latinos represent 17% of the minimum 
     wage work force, this decline in the value of work has a 
     severe impact on our community. Latino families are more 
     likely to live below the poverty line, and Latino children 
     are twice as likely to be living in poverty than non-Hispanic 
     children.
       By moderately raising the minimum wage, we will all 
     benefit. Over a dozen empirical studies have shown that an 
     increase in the minimum wage would not have a negative impact 
     on employment. Instead of having the largest wage gap of any 
     industrial country, Congress can act to keep jobs while 
     protecting American working families against poverty.
       Help lift families out of poverty and improve the lives of 
     over 11 million American workers now dependent on minimum 
     wage jobs. Please support S. 413.
           Sincerely,
                                                Antonia Hernandez,
     President and General Counsel.
                                                                    ____



                           Migrant Legal Action Program, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1996.
     Re Minimum Wage Increase (S. 413).
       Dear Senator: We are writing to urge you to support S. 413, 
     which would aid America's working families by increasing the 
     minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour.
       If the minimum wage were to stay at its current level, it 
     would be at the lowest level in real (inflation-adjusted) 
     dollars in the last 40 years. The real value of the minimum 
     wage is now 27% lower than it was in 1979, and has fallen 45 
     cents in real value since its last increase in April 1991. 
     The last minimum wage increase--also 90 cents--garnered 
     strong bipartisan support. That increase was passed by votes 
     of 382 (including 135 Republicans) to 37 in the House and 89 
     (including 36 Republicans) to 8 in the Senate. Both Senator 
     Dole and Representative Gingrich voted in favor of that 
     increase.
       Empirical evidence shows that this proposal can increase 
     wages without costing jobs. More than a dozen studies have 
     found that moderate increases in the minimum wage do not have 
     significant effect on employment. These studies include 
     state-specific research that shows that large state increases 
     in the minimum wage did not result in significant job 
     impacts. As Nobel Laureate Robert Solow stated, ``[T]he 
     evidence of

[[Page S7350]]

     job loss is weak. And the fact that evidence is weak suggests 
     that the impact on jobs is small.''
       The Migrant Legal Action Program works on behalf of the 
     millions of migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the United 
     States. An estimated 1.65 million farmworkers would benefit 
     from the proposed minimum wage increase. Despite their 
     critical role in providing stoop labor to prune, tend, 
     harvest, and pack our nation's fruit and vegetables, migrant 
     farmworkers are among the most impoverished and exploited 
     populations in this country. At least two-thirds of all 
     migrant farmworkers live below the poverty line. The majority 
     of migrant farmworkers earn on average $4.47 per hour. 
     Research indicates that an increase in the minimum wage of 
     $5.15 would have a ``ripple'' effect, raising the wages of 
     farmworkers who earn within 50 cents of the new minimum wage. 
     Thus, a rise in the minimum wage would be a significant boost 
     to the standard of living of migrant farmworkers.
       We strongly urge you to support Americans' low-wage 
     workers, including farmworkers, by voting in favor of S. 413.
           Sincerely,
                                               Roger C. Rosenthal,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, excerpts from the excellent statement 
from the NAACP state:

       It is clearly a step in the right direction to improve the 
     income and the quality of living for all Americans through an 
     increase in the minimum wage. This is particularly true for 
     African Americans, who disportionately constitute a large 
     segment of minimum wage earners with below poverty level 
     incomes. . . For all of these reasons, we strongly urge you 
     to vote in favor of S. 413. . .

  ``The National Urban League,'' the same, ``believes that raising the 
minimum wage is an eminently sensible step. It would mean affirming a 
pro-work pro-family stance that should be welcomed by all who believe 
work should be rewarded * * *''
  This continues with the National Hispanic Leadership Institute: ``It 
is time that this country began to take care of families and 
children.''
  This is a women's issue. It is an issue of justice. It is a 
children's issue. Mr. President, it is a family issue--a family issue.
  I will not take the time of the Senate now to recount the stories 
that we heard during our forums on the increase in the minimum wage, 
where we find a father and a mother not just having one minimum wage 
job, but each having two minimum wage jobs--two minimum wage jobs. When 
they testified or told us about their life's experience, they did not 
complain about working hard. They did not complain about backbreaking 
hours or hard, difficult, dreary work that is repetitive in so many 
ways. They did not complain. Their principle complaint was they did not 
have enough time with their children, that they did not see their 
children together, that the only time they see their children together 
is perhaps for a few hours on a Sunday. They always saw their children 
apart. We heard that time in and time out, Mr. President.
  I hope we will not hear a lot of arguments about families, which we 
always do, and then when we have something that can make a real 
difference in terms of families, we find opposition to it. This is a 
families issue. It is a mother's issue, a child's issue, an issue of 
justice and fairness, an issue of identifying and rewarding work. It is 
family issue, and it is an economic issue for the reasons I outlined, 
in saving the taxpayer.
  It goes on, Mr. President. Another letter, from MALDEF:

       The time has come to raise the minimum wage to a living 
     wage.

  Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, Migrant Legal Action Program, all excellent 
letters. I hope those who come out in opposition, who say, ``We do not 
want to see a great dislocation of jobs,'' this opens an opportunity 
for minorities, blacks, and browns. The organizations that speak to 
them and the individuals that speak on this issue overwhelmingly 
support an increase.
  Nowhere in America is there higher support than among those that are 
receiving the minimum wage, even when all the arguments are made, and I 
think inappropriately, about the dangers to those individuals--their 
jobs. I will come back to that issue.
  Mr. President, this is a public health issue, as shown in a recent 
study by the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the 
British Medical Journal. Income inequality is a major public health 
problem. Measures such as raising the minimum wage, reducing the gap 
between the rich and poor will have a beneficial impact on the Nation's 
health. Findings show that reducing the income gap is correlated with 
mortality, even after adjusting for age and smoking. It is especially 
correlated with infant mortality, coronary heart disease, cancer, 
homicide, higher mortality from treatable diseases. One striking result 
is that the relationship between income inequality and mortality rates 
remained even after controlling for poverty. Greater income inequality 
was actually correlated with increased mortality rates for all income 
levels, not only for the poor.

  So, Mr. President, for those that are opposed to the position we have 
advanced here this afternoon about what the impact of this is going to 
be on employment, we have included the series of studies on the impact 
on employment. I will come back to those issues in just a few moments, 
but these are some of the most recent studies, seven recent minimum 
wage studies on the impact of our increase in the minimum wage and what 
it would have on employment. These are the subjects of the study: New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania fast food restaurants, minimum wage raised to 
$5.05 in April 1992; increase in the wage, 11 percent. Did employment 
go down? No, employment goes up.
  Right across the chart, Texas fast food restaurants, minimum wage 
rises to $4.25 in 1991. Mr. President, Texas has one of the highest 
numbers of people that would benefit with this increase in minimum 
wage. Wages go up 8 percent, and employment up 20 percent.
  It goes on. California teenagers, minimum wage rises in 1988, 10 
percent in wages, employment up 12 percent. Cross-State teenagers, 
cross-State workers with low-predicted wages from 1989 to 1992--we see 
the numbers constantly go up. And you can say, Mr. President, even the 
study with the 101 economists, 3 Nobel laureates, in their study--I am 
referring now to the leading economists for the higher minimum wage, 
Nobel laureates, with 101 signers of a statement backing a 90-cent hike 
over 2 years. I will include the whole statement on it. It is only 2 
pages long. It says:

       Most policies to boost the income of low-wage workers have 
     positive and negative features. The minimum wage is an 
     important component of the set of policies to help low-wage 
     workers. It has key advantages, including that it produces 
     positive work incentives * * * For these and other reasons, 
     such as its exceptionally low value today, there should be 
     greater reliance on the minimum wage to support the earnings 
     of low-wage workers.
       We believe that a Federal minimum wage can be increased by 
     a moderate amount without significantly jeopardizing 
     employment opportunities. A minimum wage increase would 
     provide a much-needed boost to the incomes of many low- and 
     moderate-income households. Specifically, the proposed 
     increase in the minimum wage of 90 cents over a 2-year period 
     falls within the range of alternatives where the overall 
     effects on the labor market, affected workers, and the 
     economy would be positive.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire document be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    [From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 2, 1995]

            Leading Economists Call for Higher Minimum Wage


Three Nobel Winners Among 101 Signers of Statement Backing 90-Cent Hike 
                             Over Two Years

       An eminent group of economists--including three recipients 
     of the Nobel Prize in Economics--have endorsed an increase in 
     the federal minimum wage in a statement released today.
       Among the 101 signatories of the statement are seven past 
     president of the American Economics Association and experts 
     in disciplines ranging from labor markets and industrial 
     relations to income distribution and poverty. Their statement 
     was released by two Washington-based research organizations, 
     the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic 
     Policy Institute.
       The statement notes that ``After adjusting for inflation, 
     the value of the minimum wage is at its second-lowest annual 
     level since 1955. The purchasing power of the minimum wage is 
     26 percent below its average level during the 1970s . . . '' 
     The purchasing power of the minimum wage reached its lowest 
     level right before the last increase in 1990.
       ``We believe that the federal minimum wage can be increased 
     by a moderate amount without significantly jeopardizing 
     employment opportunities . . . Specifically, the proposed 
     increase in the minimum wage of 90

[[Page S7351]]

     cents over a two-year period falls within the range of 
     alternatives where the overall effects on the labor, market, 
     affected workers and the economy would be positive,'' the 
     economists' statement continues. (Such an increase has been 
     proposed this year in both the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.)
       The statement's release comes as Congress is actively 
     considering reductions in the Earned Income Tax Credit. 
     Workers who are affected by a stagnant minimum wage are in 
     large part the same people who would be hurt by proposed EITC 
     cuts.
       Opponents of a higher minimum wage sometimes claim that 
     economic opinion is settled against any increase. The 
     statement shows that this claim is inaccurate; there is 
     substantial support within the Economics profession for a 
     moderate increase.
       The three Novel winners backing the minimum wage increase 
     are Kenneth J. Arrow of Stanford, Lawrence R. Klein of the 
     University of Pennsylvania, and James Tobin of Yale. Each has 
     served as president of the American Economics Association. 
     The other AEA past presidents signing the statement are Moses 
     Abramovitz of Stanford, Robert Eisner of Northwestern, John 
     Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard, and William Vickrey of 
     Columbia.


            statement of support for a minimum wage increase

       As economists who are concerned about the erosion in the 
     living standards of households dependent on the earnings of 
     low-wage workers, we believe that the federal minimum wage 
     should be increased. The reasons underlying this conclusion 
     include:
       After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum 
     wage is at its second lowest annual level since 1955. The 
     purchasing power of the minimum wage is 26 percent below its 
     average level during the 1970s.
       Since the early 1970s, the benefits of economic growth have 
     been unevenly distributed among workers. Raising the minimum 
     wage would help ameliorate this trend. The positive effects 
     of the minimum wage are not felt solely by low-income 
     households, but minimum wage workers are overrepresented in 
     poor and moderate-income households.
       In setting the value of the minimum wage, it is of course 
     appropriate to assess potential adverse effects. On balance, 
     however, the evidence from recent economic studies of the 
     effects of increases in federal and state minimum wages at 
     the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s--as well as 
     updates of the traditional time-series studies--suggests that 
     the employment effects were negligible or small. Economic 
     studies of the effects of the minimum wage on inflation 
     suggest that a higher minimum wage would affect prices 
     negligibly.
       Most policies to boost the incomes of low-wage workers have 
     both positive and negative features. And excessive reliance 
     on any one policy is likely to create distortions. The 
     minimum wage is an important component of the set of policies 
     to help low-wage workers. It has key advantages, including 
     that it produces positive work incentives and is 
     administratively simple. For these and other reasons, such as 
     its exceptionally low value today, there should be greater 
     reliance on the minimum wage to support the earnings of low-
     wage workers.
       We believe that the federal minimum wage can be increased 
     by a moderate amount without significantly, jeopardizing 
     employment opportunities. A minimum wage increase would 
     provide a much-needed boost in the incomes of many low- and 
     moderate-income households. Specifically, the proposed 
     increase in the minimum wage of 90 cents over a two-year 
     period falls within the range of alternatives where the 
     overall effects on the labor market, affected workers, and 
     the economy would be positive.

  Mr. KENNEDY. It is not only these economists and others. I was 
interested in Business Week not long ago, May 20, 1996--I will include 
this in the Record--a commentary on ``Minimum Wage Argument You Haven't 
Heard Before.'' This is Business Week. We all hear a lot about the AFL-
CIO supporting the increase. Here is a very interesting thing. We have 
the economists, and you have DRI, the econometric study up at the 
Wharton School, one of the most respected computer analyses in terms of 
economic forecasts estimated. The most they saw would be a 20,000 job 
loss for the minimum wage.
  So you are talking negligible. You have other studies in here. There 
is the New Jersey-Pennsylvania study, which showed that it increased 
employment because people not in the wage market saw that they could 
get a livable wage and went back in. So the total number of workers 
that were working increased. Therefore, their taxes for their local 
communities, State and Federal increased as well.
  Mr. President, in this ``Minimum Wage Argument You Haven't Heard 
Before''--I will include it all--it says:

       As long as it's not overdone, lifting the minimum wage may 
     create overall economic gains that outweigh any short term 
     job loss. In fact, if it keeps productivity rising, slowly 
     boosting labor prices may actually be good for the economy in 
     the long run. ``Most economists oppose the minimum wage 
     because they haven't thought through the connection to 
     productivity,'' says Northwestern University economist Robert 
     J. Gordon.
       If this argument is correct, raising the minimum wage might 
     not hurt the economy and could even pay for itself. 
     Economists have preached the virtues of productivity growth 
     since the Luddites and before. But the extra efficiency 
     lowers prices, so consumers buy more goods and expand 
     output--and the economy gains in the long run.
       ``. . . If raising the minimum spurs technical innovations, 
     it could make a real difference in productivity and leave the 
     economy better off,'' says David B. Neumark, a Michigan State 
     University economist.

  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            A Minimum-Wage Argument You Haven't Heard Before

                          (By Aaron Bernstein)

       Most economists dislike the minimum wage for a simple 
     reason: Raise the price of anything, whether it's lettuce or 
     labor, and buyers can afford less of it. Such elementary 
     logic convinces economists that jacking up the wage floor 
     prices some workers out of a job.
       But there's more to the subject than that. Because the 
     relative prices of labor and capital influence corporate 
     investment decisions, minimum-wage levels may affect 
     productivity. If pay rates fall, employers have a greater 
     incentive to buy labor instead of new technology. As a 
     result, productivity growth, the key to higher living 
     standards, slacks off. By the same token, raising pay can 
     spur efficiency.


                            pay for itself?

       As long as it's not overdone, lifting the minimum wage may 
     create overall economic gains that outweigh any short-term 
     job losses. In fact, if it keeps productivity rising, slowly 
     boosting labor prices may actually be good for the economy in 
     the long run. ``Most economists oppose the minimum wage 
     because they haven't thought through the connection to 
     productivity,'' says Northwestern University economist Robert 
     J. Gordon.
       The best way to see his point is to look at productivity 
     growth, which has slumped to about 1% a year since 1973 from 
     3% in prior decades. One reason for the decline is the shift 
     in prices of labor and capital, says Gordon and other 
     economists. Baby boomers and women flooded the economy with 
     cheap labor in the 1970s, they argue, and then the prices of 
     capital exploded in the 1980s, when interest rates went 
     through the ceiling. The result: Employment boomed in low-
     wage service industries, but productivity sagged as new 
     technology became more pricey. ``This is one 
     possible explanation for the slowdown in technological 
     progress,'' says Paul M. Romer, a productivity expert at 
     the University of California at Berkeley.
       If this argument is correct, raising the minimum wage might 
     not hurt the economy and could even pay for itself. 
     Economists have preached the virtues of productivity growth 
     since the Luddites and before. Yes, jobs are lost when 
     employers swap technology for labor. But the extra efficiency 
     lowers prices, so consumers buy more goods and expand 
     output--and the economy gains in the long run. Economists 
     applaud fast-food chains that install automated french-fry 
     cookers and lay off workers. Why should the result be 
     different just because the employer was jolted into action by 
     higher labor costs?
       Of course, a minimum wage pegged too high would be a 
     problem. A minimum of $13 an hour, say--the average wage for 
     the economy as a whole--would be a disaster. Everyone still 
     working would be in high-wage, more productive jobs, so the 
     economy would produce more per worker. But half the workforce 
     would be unemployed, so total output would collapse.


                               Education

       One solution: peg the minimum wage to a fixed percentage of 
     average wages. That way, employers have a steady incentive to 
     search out the most efficient methods of doing business. Yet 
     the incentive isn't likely to become a hurdle that companies 
     can't figure out how to overcome. ``If raising the minimum 
     spurs technical innovations, it could make a real difference 
     in productivity and leave the economy better off,'' concedes 
     David B. Neumark, a Michigan State University economist who 
     writes on the minimum wage.
       Neumark and other skeptics still oppose an increase, 
     however, because they doubt that the economic gains would 
     materialize. Their fear: some low-skilled workers will never 
     work again. If so, efficiency gains might not offset the 
     output lost from their labor.
       That's why setting a wage floor in today's high-skills 
     economy must be combined with policies aimed at helping young 
     people--who comprise half of all minimum-wage workers--to 
     complete their schooling or vocational training. ``Yes, 
     raising the minimum would lift productivity,but then you have 
     to help those on the bottom to keep up,'' says Harvard 
     University economist Dale W. Jorgenson.
       A rising wage floor may boost living standards. It also 
     ensures that low-wage workers aren't left behind. That's good 
     for the economy and society alike.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, something that I think may have had some

[[Page S7352]]

impact over the history of these debates on the increase in the minimum 
wage is that we found that Republican Presidents like General 
Eisenhower, President Nixon, and George Bush all supported increases in 
the minimum wage. That is why so many of us are startled by the fact 
that there has been such extraordinary opposition to this whole effort 
to get an increase in the minimum wage.
  For the reasons I have outlined here before, Republican Presidents 
have supported this. In 1989, Speaker Gingrich and Bob Dole supported 
it. Yet, we have had this extraordinary difficulty in gaining support 
for an increase in the minimum wage.
  Now, Mr. President, let us take not just the studies that have been 
done in reviewing past increases, but let us take the most recent 
examples of increases in the minimum wage and what happened in the 
States that have seen some increase in the minimum wage. State 
experiences also prove that minimum wage does not kill jobs.
  Both Vermont and Massachusetts raised their State minimum wage to 
$4.75 in January of this year, while our neighbors in New Hampshire and 
New York did not. What happened since then? Have we lost jobs in 
Massachusetts and Vermont? Far from it. Since January, when these 
States raised their minimum wage, unemployment in both Massachusetts 
and Vermont has fallen. We have not lost jobs, we have added them. In 
fact, unemployment fell where the minimum wage was increased and rose 
where the minimum wage was frozen at $4.25.
  Giving working Americans a living wage will not cost jobs. Making all 
employers pay a living wage will not cost jobs. The minimum wage law in 
Massachusetts does not exempt businesses with sales of $500,000 or 
less, and neither does the minimum wage law in Vermont.
  Is the minimum wage a serious problem for small business? No, it is 
not. The studies cited by the Small Business Administration show that 
only 7 percent of small businesses consider the minimum wage a critical 
problem. Even a survey prepared by the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses, which every Member of this body knows is such 
an advocate in terms of small business, ranked the minimum wage as 62d 
in importance--62d in importance--out of 75 issues.
  Another study, funded by the NFIB Foundation, revealed that even 
among the smallest of small business--those with less than 10 
employees--only 6 percent considered the minimum wage a critical 
problem.
  So, Mr. President, you can see that the States in the most recent 
times this year that have increased the minimum wage have not lost 
employment. The results are very similar to what the various studies 
have shown, that in a number of instances--not all, but in many 
instances--the increase in the minimum wage has attracted more people 
into the job market.
  You have the outstanding economists that have recognized that an 
increase in the minimum wage would have effectively a de minimus, 
negligible impact in terms of the job market. DRI, one of the most 
respected econometric models, has found that in this most recent 
analysis that it is a virtually negligible loss of employment. And you 
find that the States have actually seen an increase in the minimum wage 
in the last several months. They have not seen a decline in the 
employment. They have actually seen an increase in the total number of 
employment.
  Mr. President, we are all aware of the stark disparity in 
compensation in the workplace. The news is full of stories about huge 
compensation packages for CEO's, and a recent study done by Pearl, 
Meyer & Partners, a New York compensation consulting fund, found the 
compensation of CEO's in 30 major companies was 212 times higher than 
the pay of the average American worker.
  Again and again, the financial pages tell the story of the shocking 
disparity between CEO compensation and pay for the average employees. 
On April 9, for example, a Washington Post study reported the $65 
million compensation package for the CEO of Green Tree Financial Corp.
  On that same day the Wall Street Journal published an 18-page section 
devoted solely to executive pay and the way it has risen through the 
roof. High-flying executive wages have risen through the roof. High-
flying compensation packages like these are increasingly common, and 
they stand in stark contrast to the minimum wage that has been stuck in 
the basement for the last 5 years.
  Mr. President, one of the groups that is strongest in opposition to 
the increase has been the food industry and restaurants which have 
developed a special provision in this Republican proposal as well so 
they effectively can circumvent any increase in the minimum wage, even 
though half of the women who work in restaurants across the country 
take on average $250 home a week. With their dependents you see that 
they are well below the poverty program. The restaurant industry has 
been able to carve out their own kinds of protection on it. We have 
gone through that. I will either take time tomorrow, or later to go 
through this in greater detail.
  But I was particularly interested in looking through the compensation 
for those in the restaurant industry. What you find is this 
extraordinary explosion and increase in the salaries of those in the 
restaurant industries. They have increased dramatically, and no one is 
begrudging that they are doing very well in terms of the payments. But 
I daresay it is not very convincing when we hear about the problems the 
restaurant industry is having, and we see the total work force 
increasing, the profits going up, and the increase in the CEO's of 
these various food chain and food restaurant chains--low-wage fast-food 
restaurants--that are the strongest in opposition to this. We see that 
their salaries and compensation is going right up through the roof in 
spite of the fact that by and large most of them have had very, very 
substantial profits over the period of these recent years--significant 
profits; dramatic increase in the compensation of the CEO's; and 
effectively blind opposition to any increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. President, I will maybe go into that in greater detail as we have 
a chance to go through the debate.
  Our Democratic Senators say raise the minimum wage. Our Republicans 
say let them eat cake. At best the last minimum wage was a very minimum 
wage. The minimum wage which you can have is effectively the minimum-
minimum wage.
  What possible rationale can there be for forcing millions of 
Americans to continue to work, as everyone knows, for wages so low that 
they cannot support a family? Republicans say the reason is to save 
jobs. But the fact is the modest increase we are proposing will not 
cause job loss and may even lead to an increase in employment.
  One reason for that result is reflected in the analysis that Salomon 
Bros. recently released in a U.S. Equity Research Report of April 22, 
1996. Salomon Bros. predicted that retail businesses would benefit from 
an increase in the minimum wage due to the enhanced purchasing power.
  This is not a publication by the AFL-CIO. Here is Salomon Brothers' 
study of April 22, 1996.

       We believe that many retailers, especially discounters, 
     would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage due to the 
     enhanced purchasing power you create for many lower income 
     consumers.

  It is interesting that that concept has finally been accepted. Henry 
Ford understood it at the very beginning of the production of Fords. He 
understood that the only way he was going to sell his product was to 
give a decent enough wage so his workers could afford it. That is a 
lesson that we are coming back to.

  So, Mr. President, we have other reasons from the business community 
that has indicated what their assessment about the impact of the 
minimum wage is.
  So when we come out here later on this afternoon and tomorrow and 
say, ``Well, enormous job loss, inflation loss,'' the best estimate is 
that the impact of inflation is one-tenth of 1 percent.
  Mr. President, in spite of the sensible studies like this, The 
National Restaurant Association claims that a minimum wage increase 
would be a job killer even though the restaurant industry has seen 
enormous employment growth since the last minimum wage. In fact, the 
actual experience of the restaurant industry shows the minimum wage 
increase would be good for business and good for the economy. For

[[Page S7353]]

3 years, before the two-step minimum wage in 1990-91, employment growth 
in the restaurant industry was falling along with the real wages of 
minimum wage workers. Restaurant industry growth in employment growth 
fell from 3.1 percent in 1987 to 2.8 percent in 1988, 2.3 percent in 
1989, and 1.7 in 1990.
  This is the decline in the growth of, annual employment growth, 
``Eating and Drinking Establishments.'' It is very interesting that it 
was in 1990 when the minimum wage went in, in 1991. After the last 
minimum wage actually went in, we see this dramatic increase in terms 
of employment. Nonetheless, we just had an enormous 800,000 new jobs in 
the industry from 1991 to 1995. That is what our Republican friends 
call ``job killing.''
  I say let us have more of it.
  With respect to the Republican proposal for the small business 
subminimum, it is critical to remember that the last minimum wage 
increase took effect 5 long years ago. The coverage was expanded at the 
time to include employees and small restaurants who formally had been 
excluded. According to the Republican dogma, that expansion should have 
compounded the job killing effect of the increase. But it did not. 
Instead, the restaurant industry has enjoyed greater job growth, record 
profits, mind boggling increases in CEO pay. A subminimum wage is not 
needed. Small businesses do not need it, and their employees do not 
deserve that harsh and unfair treatment.
  It is no wonder that America is growing apart as a Nation when so 
much effort is being expended to help those at the top of the ladder 
while ignoring the families at bottom of the ladder.
  By lifting families out of poverty, an increase in the minimum wage 
of $5.15 an hour has additional benefits to society in terms of saving 
expenditures under the safety net.
  Regrettably, our Republican colleagues continue to try to do all they 
can to undermine a fair increase in the minimum wage. At every turn, 
wherever they can, they take away the protection of minimum wage from 
various groups of workers and delay increases. That is what they try to 
do. Their goal is to see that any bill that passes leaves us with the 
result that more people are hurt than helped by the legislation. And 
that is what the Republican amendment would do.
  First, they want to put off any raise until January 1, 1997, at the 
earliest. That means for another 6 months minimum wage workers will go 
without a raise as they already have for more than 5 years. They will 
be denied approximately $500 more in additional pay they would receive 
over the next 6 months--$500 they could have to buy medicine for 
children, new school clothes, Christmas presents. Surely our Republican 
colleagues must find this kind of meanness embarrassing.

  Next, the Republican opponents to the minimum wage propose to create 
a subminimum wage for any worker who takes a job with a new employer. 
At least the House of Representatives targeted that on teenagers. And 
then they had a shorter period of time of 90 days. But they had it on 
teenagers. This is 160 days. And grownups, even if you have been a 
laid-off skilled worker that has worked for 20 or 30 years, for the 
first 6 months you are not going to get any increase. Our Republican 
friends know that about 40 percent of those that get the minimum wage 
are rotating every year.
  So effectively it excludes anywhere from 40 to 45 percent of the 
total individuals that would be eligible for a minimum wage increase. 
At least they are true enough more than the last time in 1989 when they 
called this job training, except there was no requirement that any 
worker get an hour of training or an hour of education--no requirement 
on the employers at all. They just say that we need to have them have 
job training and education on that program because there was no 
requirement at all that they have it. Now we are talking for a period 
of 6 months. If you move from one job to another job, which so many of 
the workers do, you would be excluded. You come to the second job, and 
you start off there. They say for 6 months you do not get an increase 
above $4.25. Does not anyone think that might be an incentive for the 
employer to dismiss those workers? Of course, it will be. Of course, it 
will be.

  I hope our Republican friends will talk to that issue. It will be an 
additional incentive to dismiss those and hire some others for the 
$4.25 and save themselves 20 or 22 percent on the employment of those 
people. But the American people are beginning to understand this issue, 
and hopefully Senators will reflect their views tomorrow when we will 
vote on this issue.
  What they call an ``opportunity'' wage is really only an opportunity 
for the employer. It is not an opportunity for the employee. It is an 
opportunity for the employer to say that after 6 months you are 
dismissed, and I am going to bring somebody else in here and pay them 
$4.25. That is what the opportunity wage under the Bond amendment is 
really all about.
  Mr. President, people that will be hurt most by this are the 
downsized, the laid-off workers who cannot find jobs equivalent to the 
job they lost. Not only will they endure the indignity of having their 
wages fall to the minimum, they will find themselves falling to a 
subminimum wage as well.
  This past year has been a time of economic expansion and relative 
prosperity for the economy as a whole. But again and again, we see 
stories of white- and blue-collar workers laid off after long careers 
in good jobs. Many of these workers have found themselves forced to 
accept minimum-wage jobs after being laid off by a downsizing employer.
  The Republican answer to their pain is to make it even more painful 
so that these workers fall even further and suffer even deeper 
financial loss.
  Minimum-wage jobs are the least skilled jobs. They are jobs for which 
little or no job training is needed--at most, a few hours or days. Yet, 
the Republican amendment doubles the duration of the subminimum wage in 
the House bill, from the 90 to 180 days--far beyond any reasonable 
training period or try-out period.
  There is no good reason for this harsh proposal.
  What they have done is to say, look, we have the opportunity wage of 
180 days, 6 months. So that will affect probably 40 percent. Then we 
cut out the restaurant industry employees from being able to 
participate. That is going to be another several hundreds of thousands 
of workers. And then they delay the implementing date. That is going to 
save the industries hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of wages 
paid out. Gradually through all of this, with the larger carve-out of 
any small business under $500,000--and those could be as high as 10 
million--if you put all of these together, they will be able to say, 
look, we voted for an increase in the minimum wage.
  The American people are going to understand that that is basically 
devious, deceptive and demeans, I think, any argument that they are 
basically for any increase for these working families. Rather than just 
give us an opportunity to vote on this up and down, no, we cannot. We 
will have an opportunity, but it will certainly be clouded by this 
attempt to try to say, look, you can have it both ways. You can have a 
vote for the minimum wage, and yet you will also protect these 
various special interest groups. In fact, in the real Republican view, 
the only good minimum wage is no minimum wage. They would repeal it if 
they could.

  It is so interesting to me that in the period of these past months we 
have seen the attempts to dismantle the Medicare Program, the assaults 
that have been made on Social Security, and they have been made on 
Social Security, although our Republican friends will not say it, 
because Medicare is a part of Social Security; we can point that out, 
and it has been pointed out during the course of the previous debate 
and will again on the various budget issues. So they are opposed to 
Social Security, opposed to Medicare, and opposed to an increase in the 
minimum wage, those three essential items which have been such 
lifelines to millions of American families, to working families, to the 
elderly people in this country who have toiled and worked so hard for a 
better America.
  The subminimum wage in the House-passed bill is bad enough. It 
applies only to teenagers. Many of the 18- and 19-year-olds need a 
living wage as much as any adult, especially if they are young welfare 
mothers willing to work for a living. The notion that they need 
training for 3 months in jobs like burger flipping or bagging groceries 
is absurd.

[[Page S7354]]

  The Senate Republican proposal is even more objectionable because it 
imposes a longer subminimum wage.
  We will, hopefully, have a chance to respond to points that will be 
raised by our Republican friends in justification of their proposal 
perhaps later on this afternoon. I have not taken the time of the 
Senate to go through other provisions of this bill that has been 
coupled with the small business tax relief. In fact, the benefits of 
this bill to businesses are enormous. It provides $15 billion in tax 
breaks to businesses over a 10-year period. For all the time that we 
have been talking about the deficit, I hope we are going to hear from 
our Republican friends as to where they are getting that $15 billion.
  Sure, we ought to try to provide some help and relief to the smallest 
businesses that may be affected, but this is $15 billion that someone 
is going to have to make up somewhere. Someone is going to have to make 
it up. Add that to the deficit. Add that to the deficit, or at least 
respect the intelligence of the American people sufficiently to tell us 
how you are going to offset that. And can anyone believe that business 
is being hurt, not helped, with this legislation? Yet, the Senate is 
knee-deep in crocodile tears shed by Republicans who feel that business 
is being hurt.
  Small business can now deduct up to $17,000 in expenses for new 
investment in a year the investment is made rather than deducting it 
over the life of the investment as the normal accounting rules require. 
This bill would gradually increase the deduction to $25,000. It goes 
on.
  The bill opens up a loophole for corporations that we successfully 
closed in 1993.
  In the 1993 reconciliation act, multinational corporations were 
required to pay taxes on excess profits and cash on hand from their 
operations in foreign countries. This provision was the first step 
needed to close the runaway plant loophole, and it reduced the tax 
incentives that encouraged U.S. companies to move jobs overseas. That 
was closed down in 1993, and it is being reopened again--a provision 
that will provide tax incentives to move American jobs overseas.
  This bill provides tax breaks for business owners who run convenience 
stores with gasoline outlets. It provides tax breaks to banks and 
investment companies, tax credits to small wineries, helps farmers 
located in empowerment zones. It goes on. Yet they attempt to deny a 
fair increase in the minimum wage to millions of low-income Americans. 
There is no justification for denying even one working American the 
right to a living wage.
  So Senators who preach about family values should practice family 
values, too. This is our chance to speak to the people who struggle the 
hardest to make ends meet, to abide by the work ethic, who believe in 
the American dream of working hard in order to get ahead, yet who find 
themselves slipping farther and farther behind, no matter how hard they 
try. We know the hardships they face.
  In one family I met last year, the husband works 30 to 35 hours a 
week at $4.25 for a pizza chain. He works split shifts and evenings. 
His wife works 40 hours a week at a similar wage. She staggers her work 
hours so she or her husband can be home to take care of their young 
children. They have no health coverage. They cannot afford child care, 
let alone a medical savings account. Because they work different hours, 
they are rarely able to spend time together, and they worry about 
trying to save to send their children to college because both of them 
are still paying off loans for the 1 year of college they attended.
  Large numbers of minimum wage workers have similar stories. They are 
bright, hard-working Americans often with high school educations and 
dreaming of a brighter future, but they are barely scraping by because 
the law allows their work to be undervalued and underpaid.
  I urge the Senate to do the right thing for them, for the 13 million 
other Americans who will get a raise if this amendment is approved. Now 
is the time to make the minimum wage a fair wage. No one who works for 
a living should have to live in poverty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in addition to those articles 
and periodicals I referred to in my statement, to have printed in the 
Record a ``List of Signatories to Economists Statement of Support for a 
Minimum Wage Increase.''
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

   Signatories to Economists Statement of Support for a Minimum Wage 
                                Increase

       Aaron, Henry--Brookings Institution.
       Abramovitz, Moses--Stanford University.
       Allen, Steven G.--North Carolina State University.
       Altonji, Joseph G.--Northwestern University.
       Appelbaum, Eileen--Economic Policy Institute.
       Arrow, Kenneth J.--Stanford University.
       Bartik, Timothy J.--Upjohn Institute.
       Bator, Francis M.--Harvard University.
       Bergmann, Barbara--American University.
       Blanchard, Olivier--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Blanchflower, David--Dartmouth College.
       Blank, Rebecca--Northwestern University.
       Bluestone, Barry--University of Massachusetts Boston.
       Bosworth, Barry--Brookings Institution.
       Briggs, Vernon M.--Cornell University.
       Brown, Clair--University of California at Berkeley.
       Browne, Robert S.--Howard University.
       Burtless, Gary--Brookings Institution.
       Burton, John--Rutgers University.
       Chimerine, Lawrence--Economic Strategy Institute.
       Danziger, Sheldon--University of Michigan.
       Darity, WIlliam Jr.--University of North Carolina.
       DeFreitas, Gregory--Hofstra University.
       Diamond, Peter A.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Duncan, Greg J.--Northwestern University.
       Ehrenberg, Ronald A.--Cornell University.
       Eisener, Robert--Northwestern University.
       Ferguson, Ronald F.--Harvard University.
       Faux, Jeff--Economic Policy Institute.
       Galbraith, James K.--University of Texas at Austin.
       Galbraith, John Kenneth--Harvard University.
       Garfinkel, Irv--Columbia University.
       Gibbons, Robert--Stanford University.
       Glickman, Norman--Rutgers University.
       Gordon, David M.--New School for Social Research.
       Gordon, Robert J.--Northwestern University.
       Gramlich, Edward--University of Michigan.
       Gray, Wayne--Clark University.
       Harrison, Bennett--Harvard University.
       Hartmann, Heidi--Institute for Women's Policy Research.
       Haveman, Robert H.--University of Wisconsin.
       Heilbroner, Robert--New School for Social Research.
       Hirsch, Barry T.--Florida State University.
       Hirschman, Albert O.--Princeton University.
       Hollister, Robinson G.--Swarthmore College.
       Holzer, Harry J.--Michigan State University.
       Howell, David R.--New School for Social Research.
       Hurley, John--Jackson State University.
       Jacoby, Sanford M.--University of California at Los 
     Angeles.
       Kahn, Alfred E.--Cornell University.
       Kamerman, Sheila B.--Columbia University.
       Katz, Harry C.--Cornell University.
       Katz, Lawrence--Harvard University.
       Klein, Lawrence R.--University of Pennsylvania.
       Kleiner, Morris M.--University of Minnesota.
       Kochan, Thomas A.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Lang, Kevin--Boston University.
       Lester, Richard A.--Princeton University.
       Levy, Frank--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Lindbloom, Charles E.--Yale University.
       Madden, Janice F.--University of Pennsylvania.
       Mangum, Garth--University of Utah.
       Margo, Robert--Vanderbilt University.
       Markusen, Ann--Rutgers University.
       Marshall, Ray--University of Texas at Austin.
       Medoff, James L.--Harvard University.
       Meyer, Bruce--Northwestern University.
       Minsky, Hyman P.--Bard College.
       Mishel, Lawrence--Economic Policy Institute.
       Montgomery, Edward B.--University of Maryland.
       Murnane, Richard J.--Harvard University.
       Musgrave, Peggy B.--University of California at Santa Cruz.
       Musgrave, Richard A.--University of California at Santa 
     Cruz.
       Nichols, Donald--University of Wisconsin.
       Ooms, Van Doom--Committee for Economic Development.
       Osterman, Paul--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Packer, Arnold--Johns Hopkins University.
       Papadimitriou, Dimitri B.--Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
       Perry, George L.--Brookings Institution.
       Peterson, Wallace C.--University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
       Pfeifer, Karen--Smith College.

[[Page S7355]]

       Piore, Michael--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Polenske, Karen--Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
       Quinn, Joseph--Boston College.
       Reich, Michael--University of California at Berkeley.
       Reynolds, Lloyd G.--Yale University.
       Scherer, F.M.--Harvard University.
       Schor, Juliet B.--Harvard University.
       Shaikh, Anwar--Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
       Smeeding, Tim--Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral 
     Sciences.
       Smolensky, Eugene--University of California at Berkeley.
       Stromsdorfer, Ernst W.--Washington State University.
       Summers, Anita A.--University of Pennsylvania.
       Summers, Robert--University of Pennsylvania.
       Tobin, James--Yale University.
       Vickrey, William--Columbia Unviersity.
       Voos, Paula B.--University of Wisconsin.
       Vroman, Wayne--Urban Institute.
       Watts, Harold--Columbia University.
       Whalen, Charles J.--Jerome Levy Economics Institute.
       Wolff, Edward--New York University.


                        Small Business Exemption

  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, Mr. President, an op-ed article in today's USA 
Today by Jack Faris, president and CEO of the National Federation of 
Independent Business, perpetuates the fallacy that Congress acted by 
mistake in 1989 when it increased the small business exemption under 
the so-called enterprise coverage test, but failed to do so for the so-
called individual coverage test. In fact, Congress was well aware of 
the effect of its actions in 1989. There was no mistake.
  Since the beginning, the minimum wage has covered large numbers of 
workers engaged in interstate commerce, regardless of the size of the 
firms they work for.
  In fact, the original minimum wage, enacted in 1938, contained only 
the individual coverage test. That coverage was based on the view that 
Congress had broad power under the commerce clause of the Constitution 
to protect workers even in the smallest firms, as long as the workers 
were involved in interstate commerce.
  From 1938 to 1961, coverage was based only on that principle--
individual coverage--a case-by-case, worker-by-worker analysis as to 
whether the actual work involved interstate commerce.
  At the beginning, the minimum wage also contained numerous exemptions 
based largely on policy decisions and interest group pressures. In some 
cases, entire industries or occupations were excluded from coverage. In 
the years since 1938, the major goals of Congress have been not only to 
increase the purchasing power of the minimum wage--or at least prevent 
a decline in its purchasing power because of inflation--but also to 
reduce the scope of these broad exemptions.
  Notwithstanding the numerous industry specific exemptions, Congress 
never enacted a general exemption for small businesses. Since the 
beginning, many workers in very small firms have continued to be 
protected by the minimum wage under the individual coverage test.
  In 1961, with the economy having grown rapidly in the years after 
World War II, and with vastly increased economic activities crossing 
State lines, Congress changed the definition of coverage of the minimum 
wage to achieve coverage in a more practical way.
  The 1961 act specified that all workers in enterprises with more than 
a certain level of annual sales would be regarded as engaged in 
interstate commerce, and would therefore be covered by the minimum 
wage, whether or not the particular activities of individual workers in 
the firms involved interstate commerce. This new test of coverage was 
widely referred to as enterprise coverage.
  The sales figure for the standard was set at various levels for 
various industries. For enterprises comprised exclusively of retail 
service establishments, the threshold for coverage was set at $362,500. 
For most other industries, the threshold was $250,000. But for 
hospitals, schools, public agencies, and enterprises engaged in 
construction, laundry, or drycleaning, the threshold was zero--all 
employees in those industries were covered, regardless of the size of 
their firm.
  The addition of enterprise coverage was an expansion, not a 
reduction, of coverage. It was not a small business exemption from 
coverage--it was a large business expansion of coverage. It meant that 
workers in firms with sales above the threshold were protected by the 
minimum wage, regardless of their personal status in interstate 
commerce. They were covered, because their employers were involved in 
interstate commerce.
  Under the 1961 act, workers in firms below the specified level of 
annual sales continued to be covered under the previous case-by-case, 
worker-by-worker standard, the so-called individual coverage.
  One result of the broad increase in coverage by the 1961 act under 
enterprise coverage was the narrowing of the previous blanket exemption 
for workers in small retail firms and service firms. Workers in firms 
below the threshold in those industries for enterprise coverage 
continued to be exempted from individual coverage, even if they were 
engaged in interstate commerce. Above the threshold, workers in those 
industries were covered for the first time by the minimum wage.
  That basic dual structure of enterprise coverage and individual 
coverage has continued since 1961. In 1989, Congress enacted a large 
increase in the threshold of coverage under the enterprise test--to 
$500,000 in annual sales. That increase, if enacted by itself, would 
have reversed the 50-year history of expansions of coverage of the 
minimum wage, by excluding an estimated 3 million workers from its 
coverage under the enterprise test.
  That reduction in coverage was unacceptable by itself--so Congress 
offset the reduction by repealing the blanket exemption for workers in 
retail and service firms under the individual coverage test. For such 
firms, the pre-1961 case-by-case worker-by-worker test was reinstated. 
If the workers were engaged in interstate commerce, they were covered 
by the minimum wage.
  In recent years, some, like Mr. Faris, have attempted to argue that 
Congress mistakenly repealed the blanket exemption for these small 
retail and service firms. It is clear that some Members of Congress 
thought they were voting for a blanket small business exemption when 
they voted to increase the threshold for the enterprise test to 
$500,000. But those Members of Congress were ignoring the longstanding 
principle of individual coverage--which the 1989 act did not abandon, 
and for good reason.
  The overall legislative history of the 1989 act makes very clear that 
Congress intended to repeal the exemption for small retail and service 
firms. Otherwise, the entire legislation would have made no sense. The 
large increase in the threshold for enterprise coverage would have 
meant that 3 million workers were no longer covered by the minimum 
wage. Repeal of the exemption for small retail and service firms under 
individual coverage expanded that aspect of coverage by about the same 
number of workers. That result was intended by Congress, since the 
expansion of individual coverage offset the reduction in enterprise 
coverage. Without that fundamental compromise, the 1989 act would never 
have been approved by Congress.
  So I hope my Republican colleagues will reflect again on this 
legislative history, and reconsider their attempt to reduce coverage of 
the minimum wage by exempting so many workers from its protection. 
Those who work for small firms deserve an increase in the minimum wage. 
They have waited 5 years for a fair increase, and now is the time for 
Congress to enact it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________