[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S48-S58]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1569. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to raise 
the 15 percent income tax bracket into middle class income levels, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 1998

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Middle 
Class Tax Relief Act of 1998. Last year, this Congress passed historic 
legislation: the Balanced Budget Act providing the first balanced 
budget in nearly thirty years, and the Taxpayer Relief Act providing 
tax relief for the first time in sixteen years. As a result, faith in 
the Nation's economy is strong, and we are seeing the results of that 
faith.
  Now is the time for us to consider sweeping middle class tax relief. 
This tax relief proposal accomplishes several goals. First, it directs 
the vast majority of the relief to those who feel the tax squeeze the 
most: middle-income taxpayers.
  Second, because it is across-the-board relief, every middle class 
taxpayers wins. Every American earning $25,000 taxable income or more 
would see relief. Estimates by the Tax Foundation show that 
approximately 25 million taxpayers would see tax relief this

[[Page S49]]

year with two-thirds earning less than $75,000 annually.
  Third, it provides significant marriage penalty relief without adding 
complexity to the tax code.
  Fourth, this is one of the very few proposals that is also entirely 
consistent with the long-term goal of a flatter, simpler tax code.
  My proposal, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, achieves these goals by 
raising the roof on the 15% individual income tax bracket. In other 
words, it returns middle class taxpayers to the lowest individual 
income bracket. Married couples with taxable income of $70,000 or less 
would be taxed at the 15% tax bracket, an increase over the 1998 
threshold of $42,350. The threshold for heads of households would be 
$52,600, an increase over the current threshold of $33,950. Finally, 
the thresholds for single workers would be set at $35,000, an increase 
over the current threshold of $25,350.
  In the coming weeks, a great deal of discussion will focus on 
providing the American people with the tax relief they need and 
deserve, and how that is to be accomplished. There are a number of 
proposals providing tax relief, some of which I am a supporter. 
However, I believe the Middle Class Tax Relief Act will be successful 
ultimately because it is actually achievable during this Congress. I 
ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1571. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained 
retirement age; to the Committee on Finance.


                the senior citizen's freedom to work act

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Senior 
Citizen's Freedom to Work Act.'' This bill would fully repeal the 
erroneous Social Security earnings limit.
  Since coming to the Senate in 1987, I have been working to eliminate 
the discriminatory and unfair Earnings Test.
  I am pleased that in 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton 
signed into law my bill, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. This 
legislation took a step in the right direction by increasing the 
earning threshold for senior citizens from $11,520 to $30,000 by the 
year 2000. Now it is time to eliminate the unjust Earnings Test in its 
entirety.
  Most Americans are shocked and appalled when they discover that older 
Americans are penalized for working. Nobody should be penalized for 
working or discouraged from engaging in work. Yet, this is exactly what 
the Social Security Earnings Test does to our nation's senior citizens. 
The Social Security Earnings Test punishes Americans between the ages 
of 65 and 70 for their attempts to remain productive after retirement.
  The Social Security Earnings Test mandates that for every $3 earned 
by a retiree over the established limit, $19,999.92 in 1998, the 
retiree loses $1 in Social Security benefits. This is clearly age 
discrimination, and it is very wrong. Due to this cap on earnings, our 
senior citizens, many of whom exist on fixed, low-incomes, are burdened 
with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When this is combined 
with Federal, State, local and other Social Security taxes, it amounts 
to an outrageous 55 to 65 percent tax bite and even higher. This 
earnings limit is punitive and serves as a tremendous disincentive to 
work. An individual who is struggling to make ends meet on 
approximately $19,000 a year should not be faced with an effective 
marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent.
  The Social Security Earnings Test is a relic of the Great Depression, 
designed to move older people out of the workforce and create 
employment for younger individuals. This is an archaic policy and 
should no longer be our goal because our nation's labor pool is 
shrinking. Many senior citizens can make a significant contribution, 
and often their knowledge and experience compliments or exceeds that of 
younger employees. Tens of millions of Americans are over the age of 
65, and together they have over a billion years of cumulative work 
experience. These individuals have valuable experience to offer our 
society, and we need them.
  In addition, experts predict a labor shortage when the ``baby boom'' 
generation ages, and it is evident that employers will have to develop 
new sources of income as our elderly population continues to grow much 
faster than the number of workers entering the workforce. According to 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ``retaining older workers is a priority 
in labor intensive industries, and will become even more critical as we 
approach the year 2000.'' To me it seems counterproductive and foolish 
to keep willing, diligent workers out of the American workforce. Our 
country must continue to support pro-work, not pro-welfare policies.
  More importantly, many of the older Americans penalized by the 
earnings test need to work in order to cover their basic expenses; 
health care, housing and food. Many seniors do not have significant 
savings or a private pension. For this reason, low-income workers are 
particularly hard-hit by the earnings test.
  It is important to note that wealthy seniors, who have lucrative 
investments, stocks, and substantial savings are not affected by the 
earnings limits. Their supplemental ``unearned'' income is not subject 
to the earnings threshold. The earnings limit only affects seniors who 
must work and depend on their earned income for survival.
  Finally, let me stress that repealing the burdensome and unfair 
earnings test would not jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security 
funds. Opponents who claim otherwise are engaging in cruel scare 
tactics. It is important to remember that the Social Security benefits 
which working seniors are losing due to the earnings test penalty are 
benefits they have rightfully earned by contributing to the system 
throughout their working years before retiring. These are benefits 
which they should not be losing because they are trying to survive by 
supplementing their Social Security income. Furthermore, certain 
studies indicate that repealing the earnings test would result in a net 
increase of $140 million in federal revenue.
  Mr. President, there is no compelling justification for denying 
economic opportunity to an individual on the basis of age. It is quite 
evident that the earnings test is outdated, unjust and discriminatory. 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would eliminate 
this egregious law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BRYAN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 1572. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from 
promulgating certain regulations relating to Indian gaming activities; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                     gaming activities legislation

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, Senators Enzi, Reid and I are today 
introducing legislation to stop the Interior Department from moving 
forward with regulations that in my view trample on States rights and 
invade the province of Governors and State legislators to determine 
what kinds of gaming activities will occur in their States. This 
proposed regulation flies in the face of the intent of Congress.
  I must say I am disappointed we are forced to take this step and 
would hope that the Secretary of the Interior would reconsider his ill-
advised action. Last week the Secretary of Interior proposed rules that 
would allow the Interior Department to be the sole arbiter in the 
compacting process as to what kinds of gaming activities can be 
conducted on Native American lands. This is being done over the strong 
objections of the Nation's Governors and the Nation's Attorneys 
General, as well as the intent of Congress.
  I believe that in so doing, the Secretary is overstepping his 
authority and is making a grave mistake. In what I consider 
particularly convoluted logic, the Department has asserted that because 
the courts have struck down certain provisions of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, referred to as IGRA, that they can step in and decide 
on their own what gaming activities States must allow tribes to engage 
in.
  I think by way of background, Mr. President, it may be helpful to 
share with my colleagues the basis of the underlying legislation as it 
relates to Native American gaming activities. In 1988, the Congress 
passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and in so doing, tribal gaming 
activities were and are divided into three categories,

[[Page S50]]

with class I being reserved as traditional Indian games, class II being 
bingo-type games, and class III being casino-type games. Now, with 
respect to class III gaming, under the law, States and tribal 
governments negotiate a compact as to what type of games are to be 
permitted, if any, within class III.
  Under recent court decisions, Governors are required to negotiate 
with tribes only on gaming activity that is permitted by law in that 
State. For instance, Hawaii and Utah prohibit all forms of gaming, and 
therefore their respective Governors are not required to negotiate with 
tribes for any types of gaming activity. In Nevada, where we permit all 
forms of casino gaming, that is class III gaming, the State is required 
to enter into a compact with tribes allowing them to engage in all 
forms of gaming, and indeed without conflict or controversy five such 
compacts have been entered into.
  The Secretary has chosen, however, to put his own legal 
interpretation of what types of gaming activities must be put on the 
negotiating table. This so-called ``scope of gaming'' issue was fought 
out in the courts and decided in favor of Governors in the Rumsey case. 
The Rumsey case held that Governors are not forced to negotiate other 
gaming activities that are not permitted in the State in general.
  The Secretary appears to be trying to circumvent this decision and 
would force States, for example, that would allow a lottery and require 
them to negotiate with Indian tribes to make slot machines available, 
even though slot machines are illegal in that State. Given this clearly 
skewed legal interpretation, it seems to me that the Governors' fears 
are well-founded.
  The Department holds the position of fiduciary and trust obligation 
to the tribes and is an acknowledged advocate for tribal interests. The 
Department is taking the position that it should be the sole arbiter 
between the interest of the State and tribes in negotiating what form 
and scope of gaming should be permitted when it clearly has a bias in 
favor of one of the parties.
  It is no wonder the Governors said in their December 5 letter to 
President Clinton that they will actively oppose any independent 
assertion by the Secretary of his power to authorize tribal governments 
to operate class III gaming.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the December 5, 1997, letter 
addressed to the President by the Western Governors' Association, 
signed by its chairman, Governor Knowles of Alaska, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Western Governors' Association,

                                     Denver, CO, December 5, 1997.
     William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States,
     The White House, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. President: It is the understanding of the Western 
     Governor's Association that the Secretary of Interior has 
     proposed a rule-making on Indian Gaming that would usurp the 
     Governors authority to enter into compact negotiations on 
     gaming with Indian tribes. States have repeatedly voiced 
     their concerns about the Secretary's desire a promulgate this 
     rule. On October 10, a letter was sent by the National 
     Governors' Association Chairman and Vice Chairman to the 
     Secretary of Interior on this rule-making proposal.
       It is evident that the states' concerns have gone unheard 
     or at least have not been responded to by the Secretary. As a 
     former Governor, you can appreciate how troubling it is when 
     a cabinet member fails to consider or enter into a dialogue 
     with us about state's legitimate concerns.
       The Secretary is using the Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. 
     Florida decision by the Supreme Court to inappropriately 
     expand his authority. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
     established a procedure whereby decisions could be made when 
     a state and tribe were unable to agree to the terms of a 
     compact. Before the Secretary is authorized to provide a 
     compact to a tribe under IGRA, the courts must first make a 
     finding of bad faith on the part of the state. When the 
     Supreme Court stuck down the portion of IGRA that permitted 
     tribes to sue states in Federal Court, it eliminated the 
     mechanism for arriving at a finding of bad faith by the 
     court. It would be inappropriate for the Secretary to now 
     take the authority to render a finding of bad faith and then 
     to authorize a gaming compact to a tribe over the objections 
     of a state. Moreover, the Secretary's action contradicts the 
     clear intent of Congress as embodied in the final Interior 
     conference report that you signed, which imposes a one-year 
     moratorium on imposition of a procedure that would result in 
     tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state 
     compact as required by law.
       As the National Governors' Association policy states 
     ``nothing remains in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any 
     other law that endows the Secretary with the authority to 
     independently create such a process. The Governors will 
     actively oppose any independent assertion by the Secretary of 
     the power to authorize tribal governments to operate Class 
     III Gaming. State and tribal governments are best qualified 
     to craft agreements on the scope and conduct of Class III 
     Gaming under IGRA.'' Furthermore, under the duties of the 
     office, the Secretary has a special legal relationship to 
     Native Americans, and it would be impossible for him to be 
     objective in making decisions settling compact differences 
     between states and tribes--in effect the Secretary becomes a 
     self-appointed judge and jury.
       There are difficult issues, and we understand the Secretary 
     intepretating his role as advocate for Native Americans. 
     However, Governors have Constitutional responsibilities to 
     all of the people of our states. Based on these 
     responsibilities we are compelled to tell you that the 
     Secretary started down an unproductive path when we concluded 
     that the Interior Department should become the sole arbiter 
     in the compact process.
       We urge you to find a resolution to the conflicts between 
     the states and tribes that is more appropriate than that 
     initiated by the Secretary. The Western Governors Association 
     stands ready to participate in such an effort.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Tom Knowles,

                                               Governor of Alaska,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BRYAN. The Governors have repeatedly called the Secretary's 
proposal an inappropriate expansion of his authorities. Governors of 
the State in the process of negotiating a gaming compact with tribes 
will be severely disadvantaged by this proposal. Tribes will be much 
better off letting the Secretary of the Interior decide their fate--
believing they can get a better deal from a person who is an 
acknowledged advocate for their interests and indeed encourages gaming 
as a means of generating tribal revenues.
  The Department asserts the States must be acting in bad faith for the 
Secretary to strip the States of their rights. Of course, the Secretary 
is the judge and jury over whether the States, in fact, are negotiating 
in bad faith. To make matters even worse and to heighten the concerns 
the Governors have, the Department has informed us that they would 
consider the actions of Governor Wilson of California to be negotiating 
in bad faith because he refuses to negotiate with any tribe that 
persists in operating illegal games on tribal reservations. As Governor 
Wilson has indicated, he has a simple rule: If it is legal under State 
law, all can do it; if it is not legal under State law, no one can do 
it. The Governor wants the tribes to cease and desist illegal gaming 
activities before he will negotiate a compact or legal game, and the 
Interior Department would consider that bad faith.
  Now, that situation is not peculiar to California alone. Let me cite 
an example, if I may, Mr. President, in a letter addressed to the 
Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, July 1, 1996, on 
behalf of the National Governors' Association. I quote a single 
paragraph from that letter. It arises out of the situation that 
occurred in the State of Florida.

       The factual situation underlying the U.S. Supreme Court's 
     decision in Seminole is an example of typical tribal-State 
     conflict over IGRA implementation. Florida refused to 
     negotiate with the Seminole Tribe over the operation of slot 
     machines. Slot machines are prohibited by Florida law, and 
     state voters have rejected three referenda to legalize such 
     devices, as well as other casino-style games. The state's 
     public policy and the preference of Florida citizens with 
     respect to this type of gambling activity could not be 
     clearer. Yet the Seminole Tribe proceeded to take the state 
     to court on the grounds that Florida had failed to negotiate 
     in good faith, even though the state was merely negotiating 
     within the limits of state law and state public policy on 
     gambling.

  Again, under the proposed regulation, the Interior Department would 
interpret the Florida situation as being one of bad faith and therefore 
the Interior Department could step in--in effect, supersede the 
negotiations and the position taken by Florida's Governor in response 
to voter preference and public policy in the State of Florida--and to 
negotiate a compact that could conceivably allow a full range of casino 
gaming activity contrary to the public policy of that State.
  Mr. President, I am personally offended that the Department has 
chosen to proceed with rulemaking in clear violation of the intent of 
Congress.

[[Page S51]]

 Members will recall that Senator Enzi and I attached language to the 
Interior appropriations bill which imposes a moratorium on the 
Department implementing such a rule. The language reads: ``During 
fiscal year 1998, the Secretary may not expend any funds made available 
under this act to review or approve any initial tribal-State compact 
for class III gaming entered into on or after the day of the enactment 
of this act, except for a compact which has been approved in accordance 
with IGRA and State law.'' That contemplates the negotiating process 
between Governors and the tribal governments, as I indicated 
previously.
  Nevertheless, the Department has chosen to ignore our intent and to 
proceed with putting this process in place, which Congress has clearly 
said it doesn't want. Since the Department has chosen to ignore the 
clear intent of Congress, we are forced to stop this power grab once 
again through the legislative process.
  I might note over 100 compacts between States and tribes for class 
III gaming have been successfully negotiated. As I pointed out 
previously, five of those compacts are in place in Nevada. In only a 
handful of States has the compacting process failed. I believe the 
failure can be attributed to the unwillingness of Federal prosecutors 
to close down illegal tribal gaming operations. Tribes running illegal 
operations have no incentive to reach an agreement with States as long 
as they face no consequences for their illegal gaming activities.
  In California alone, tribes are operating 14,000 illegal slot 
machines. It is not clear to me why the Secretary of Interior feels the 
need to stack the deck even further against the interests of those 
States who do not favor, as a matter of public policy, slot machines in 
their States.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that the Secretary will reconsider this 
ill-advised proposal. If not, we will work with the Nation's Governors 
and Nation's attorneys general on this legislation to block the 
emasculation of States' rights.
  This bill is introduced by myself, Senator Enzi, and Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Moseley-Braun, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Torricelli and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1573. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
increase the Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                   the fair minimum wage act of 1998

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Wellstone, 
Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Kerry, Torricelli, Boxer, and myself, I am 
introducing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998, a bill to raise the 
minimum wage in three annual increases of 50 cents each in the next 
three years, to bring the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 
an hour today to $6.65 an hour on September 1 in the year 2000. 
Congressmen Bonior and Gephardt are introducing identical legislation 
in the House of Representatives.
  After the third year, the legislation calls for the minimum wage to 
be indexed, so that it will rise automatically as the cost of living 
increases. Working Americans should not have to depend on the whim of 
Congress each election year to determine whether they are paid a fair 
minimum wage.
  In 1996, after a hard-fought battle in the last Congress, we raised 
the minimum wage, and the economy continued to grow. The scare tactics 
about lost jobs proved to be as false as they are self-serving. A 
recent study by the Economic Policy Institute documents that ``the sky 
hasn't fallen'' as a result of the last increase.
  Raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss for teenagers, 
adults, men, women, African-Americans, Latinos, or anyone else. 
Certainly, the 12 million Americans who would benefit from this 
legislation deserve the increase.
  We know who these workers are. Sixty percent are women. Nearly three-
quarters are adults. Half of those who would benefit from this bill 
work full-time. Over 80 percent of them work at least 20 hours a week. 
They are teachers' aides and child care providers. They are single 
heads of households with children. They are people who clean office 
buildings in countless communities across the country. Working 40 hours 
a week, 52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers earn $10,712 a year--
$2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three.
  No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. In good 
conscience, we cannot continue to proclaim or celebrate the Nation's 
current prosperity while consigning millions who have jobs to live in 
continuing poverty.
  The value of the minimum wage still lags far behind inflation. To 
have the purchasing power that it had in 1968, the minimum wage today 
would have to be $7.33 an hour instead of the current level of $5.15 an 
hour. That fact is a measure of how far we have not just fallen short, 
but actually fallen back, in giving low-income workers their fair share 
of our extraordinary economic growth.
  In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has 
gone up by 115 percent, while the purchasing power of the minimum wage 
has gone down by 30 percent. Lavish end-of-the-year bonuses were 
recently distributed on Wall Street--but not to the working families on 
Main Street, who actually created the wealth in the first place.
  Americans understand that those on the bottom rungs of the economic 
ladder deserve a raise. Seventy-six percent of those surveyed in the 
January 21 ABC-Washington Post poll said they supported increasing the 
minimum wage.
  Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed by Peter Hart Research 
earlier this month specifically supported a three-year, $1.50 increase.
  The American people understand the unfairness of requiring working 
families to subsist on a sub-poverty minimum wage. Across the country, 
soup kitchens, food pantries and homeless shelters are increasingly 
serving the working poor, not just the unemployed. In 1996, according 
to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 38 percent of those seeking emergency 
food aid held jobs --up from 23 percent in 1994. Low-paying jobs are 
the most frequently cited cause of hunger. Officials in 67 percent of 
the cities cited this factor.
  I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation. Twelve 
million working Americans deserve a helping hand. No one who works for 
a living should have to live in poverty.
  Mr. President, we have had the opportunity, since the minimum wage 
was increased in the last two years, to test the validity of the 
principal argument in opposition to this bill. We will hear this claim 
again this year on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and that is, that this 
adds to the problems of inflation. Yet, we have had virtually no 
inflation over these last 18 months.

  We will also hear that raising the minimum wage will cause the loss 
of hundreds of thousands of jobs. I can already hear the same tired, 
old arguments we have heard every time this body has debated an 
increase in the minimum wage--an estimate that we will lose anywhere 
from 200,000 to 300,000 to 400,000 jobs. Those were the statements made 
the last time we debated this issue on the floor of the Senate. And our 
good Republican friends in the House of Representatives said there was 
absolutely no way that their body was going to consider an increase in 
the minimum wage, and there was strong opposition over here among the 
Republican leadership in the Senate even to giving us an opportunity to 
vote on this measure. It was only after lengthy efforts that we were 
able actually to gain a vote and to develop bipartisan support for the 
minimum wage. Ultimately, the Senate of the United States and the House 
of Representatives responded after we added significant tax reductions 
for businesses to the legislation.
  Mr. President, if we do not take action now to increase the minimum 
wage, then the progress we made in the last two years is gradually 
going to deteriorate. Even with a three-year increase of 50 cents, 50 
cents, and 50 cents, by the third year the about 40 cents of the value 
of that $1.50 would have dissipated because of inflation. We are 
talking about working families who are trying to make it in this 
country, who have played an important role

[[Page S52]]

in this whole economic expansion. But those at the bottom rungs of the 
economic ladder have not gotten their fair share of the extraordinary 
prosperity that we are experiencing under President Clinton's 
leadership.
  So I don't understand why there is such opposition to the very modest 
increases that we are talking about, that even if implemented will 
hardly permit workers to provide for their families and be out of 
poverty. As a result of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, many, many 
more people were thrown into poverty. In many instances, they are not 
going to get the health care or the day care that they need, depending 
on a particular State's rules in this regard. But there will be 
millions of Americans who will be out there in the job market without 
the health care for their children that Medicaid would have provided or 
child care coverage that welfare benefits would have provided.
  What we are asking is that at least we pay them a livable wage. I 
don't think a single parent, with $10,000 or $12,000, is going to have 
the kind of child care that any of us would understand or respect. 
Yesterday, I was in Dorchester, Massachusetts, meeting with parents 
about an after school program, which has been in effect for a number of 
years. It's going to be expanded. The mayor of Boston calls it the 2-
to-6 program, and is trying to make available, in all parts of Boston, 
after-school programs for children. It is a very ambitious program. We 
have seen our Republican Governor indicate that he is supporting the 
after-school program. I listened to the parents who were out there, who 
talked about what happens after their children are 12 years old. The 
State of Massachusetts has a program that provides modest support for 
this kind of program for children up to 12 years old, but cuts it off 
there. Parents with tears in their eyes were saying, ``We work hard 
trying to provide for our families, and we just can't make it. Our 
children are going home and staying in an empty house in the 
afternoon.'' They pray that they are not going to get themselves in 
trouble, that the worst thing that will happen to them is they will 
just watch television. It might cost those parents $5 or $10 a week, 
maybe $20 a month to be able to have an after-school program. I expect 
that any single mom getting an increase in the minimum wage wouldn't 
think that much of a problem. That is happening in many communities in 
this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the 10 minutes 
allocated to the Senator have expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will have a chance to debate this 
issue. It is not one that should take a great deal of time to review. 
We have been through this debate time and time again. It hasn't got the 
complexities of many of the proposals the President will be talking 
about tonight. It is basic and fundamental. Every Member of this body 
has addressed this issue and voted on it one way or the other. It is 
going to be really a reflection of our values.
  Finally, Mr. President, by not increasing the minimum wage, we leave 
many workers so poor that they are eligible for government assistance 
programs, such as food stamps. These programs are being paid for by 
other workers' taxes. In effect, these employees are subsidizing the 
businesses that aren't paying a fair wage. I think that is wrong.
  We will have a chance to review the latest economic information 
available. We have to address that issue. We understand it. Some of us 
believe that Americans who work hard and play by the rules ought to be 
able to get a livable wage as a matter of principle. To achieve that 
goal, we have to address the impact on inflation and job loss. We will 
make that argument and we will make it with a great deal of enthusiasm. 
Two articles from the Wall Street Journal show that the increase in the 
minimum wage did not cause job loss or increase inflation. I will 
include those articles in the Record at the appropriate place following 
my remarks. Here was the newspaper that opposed it hammer and tong the 
last time we had the increase. I do not suggest that they are going to 
editorialize in favor of it this time. But, nonetheless, the various 
studies have shown that there is no evidence that modest increases in 
the minimum wage would harm the economy or cause job loss.

  Mr. President, I don't know what will be in the President's State of 
the Union speech tonight. There are some reports that he will indicate 
support for an increase in the minimum wage. And if he does I hope that 
our Chambers will show support for that proposal because I know it will 
make all the difference in the world for millions of Americans and 
their families. Increasing the minimum wage will allow them to look to 
the future with a greater sense of hope.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning 
business be extended for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a couple of questions that I may 
want to put to my colleague in just a moment.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts touched on two concerns 
that I want to speak about for a brief period of time. The Senator 
mentioned welfare. Earlier when I was speaking I didn't talk about the 
welfare bill. But I want the Senator to know that as we see the reports 
that this has been a huge success because there are 4 million fewer 
people receiving welfare assistance, I think there has been a lot of 
confusion. Welfare reform doesn't mean that there are fewer people on 
welfare. It doesn't mean you reduce the number of people receiving 
assistance. It means you reduce poverty. That is what it is about. It 
works if you are reducing the poverty for these families which are 90 
percent women and children.
  When I have been traveling around the country it is heartbreaking. 
The Senator talks about after school. There are 3- and 4-year olds home 
alone right now. That should not be the case because mothers are told 
to work. There are also preschoolers who are in very ad hoc 
arrangements with a relative for this week or that week, then somebody 
else the next week. We don't have affordable child care. In East LA in 
Los Angeles there is a waiting list of 30,000 for affordable child 
care. The President will be speaking about that tonight. Mr. President, 
there are first- and second-graders.
  I met a woman in Los Angeles who broke down crying because she is so 
scared because her first-grader goes home alone--she is at work--to a 
very dangerous housing project, and is told to lock the door, and take 
no phone calls. There are children who don't play outside right now.
  So when the Senator from Massachusetts talked about child care, I 
just want to emphasize the fact that welfare reform only means 
reduction of poverty. It means that children are in safe places 
receiving good child care. That is not happening.
  Mr. President, I also want to point out that there are too many 
mothers who in our community colleges who are now told, ``You cannot 
pursue your education. You have to work.'' The job is $5.15, and if the 
minimum wage isn't higher one year later they will be worse off.
  I am going to have an amendment for student deferment for those 
mothers because that is toward economic self-sufficiency, and another 
amendment that is going to require States to provide to Health and 
Human Services the data in 6 months as to how many families are moving 
toward economic self-sufficiency because you just can't eliminate 
people from assistance and cut off assistance if people do not have the 
jobs and decent wages.
  Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator this question. The Senator 
from Massachusetts was speaking to an issue that I hear about 
everywhere I go, and it sounds like the President is going to be 
speaking to it, which is that I think people in our country believe 
that if you play by the rules of the game and you work 40 hours a week 
or thereabouts 52 weeks a year you ought not to be poor in America. 
That is what this is about. The last time we had a debate on the 
minimum wage the Senator from Massachusetts just insisted that the 
Senate would address

[[Page S53]]

this issue. Does the Senator intend to make this such a precise 
priority for his work that one way or another all Senators are going to 
be voting on this? Are we going to have it on the floor of the Senate? 
Are we going to have the debate? Are we going to have a vote on it so 
all Senators can be held accountable to working families, or not?

  Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely, Senator. We will vote on this issue, and the 
earlier the better as far as I am concerned, so that minimum wage 
earners can continue the progress that they have made during the last 2 
years. We will vote on this measure. I think that those who are opposed 
to it will give the Senate the opportunity to vote on it--at least I 
certainly hope they will. But the Senator is quite correct. We will 
vote on it one way or the other, and I think we take to heart that 
Congressman Gephardt, Congressman Bonior and others have an identical 
bill. They are strongly committed. As Senators remember, there is a 
more complicated rule process over in the House of Representatives. But 
there is no reason in the world that we in the Senate cannot have an 
opportunity to vote on that measure and attach it to legislation and 
send it over to the House. We will do that and continue to do it until 
we are successful.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor. I am 
pleased to hear that because that is part of what I am here for as a 
Senator.
  Let me ask the Senator from Massachusetts one final question. We 
don't just look at polls. But does the Senator have, in terms of what 
people in the country have been saying about raising the minimum wage 
50 cents a year over the next 3 years--and we index it after that--is 
there broad public support that is a matter of simple elementary 
judgment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It is interesting that studies 
from this month show even greater support for the increase than we saw 
when we began this debate in the last Congress. Most Americans 
understand that we have had this extraordinary prosperity for millions 
of Americans over the period of the last 6 years. Most Americans 
understand that it has been working families who have made a 
difference. Those families include minimum wage earners--teachers' 
aides, who work in classrooms; health care aides, who work in nursing 
homes; and people who clean office buildings in communities across the 
country. Those men and women work hard, and they take pride in their 
work. Many of them have children, and we all know how hard it is to try 
to raise a family on $5.15 an hour. All those workers ask is to be 
treated fairly.
  One of the most startling developments in the last few years is the 
number of working families who are using soup kitchens, food pantries 
and homeless shelters in cities across the country. The U.S. Conference 
of Mayors released a study showing that in 1996, 38% of those seeking 
emergency food aid are working--not unemployed. This is up from 23% in 
1994. And, officials in two-thirds of the cities cited low wages as a 
primary reason for hunger. I don't know whether the Senator has this 
problem in rural communities in his region of the Nation. But in urban 
areas, almost 40 percent of those seeking emergency food aid are 
working, and they still can't make it.
  All we are saying is that if you are working you shouldn't have to go 
to a soup kitchen. When you are working, you shouldn't have to bring 
your children to a soup kitchen in order to be fed. The minimum wage is 
designed to prevent such problems. It has been a part of the fabric of 
our society since the late 1930's, and it has been something which has 
had bipartisan support in the past. We are hopeful that it will have 
bipartisan support this time. Ultimately we will have it. But it had 
bipartisan support under President Bush, and President Nixon supported 
the increase as well. And Republicans in this body have supported it, 
too.
  Many of our colleagues are constantly talking about the importance of 
rewarding work in our society. But when you have people who are able-
bodied, who want to work, and who have jobs--there is something wrong 
if they can't make it on their own. There is something wrong if we do 
not try to address that problem.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have one final question.
  The people who contribute don't have a lot. They are not the heavy 
hitters. They are not the ones always here in Washington to lobby us.
  How does the Senator think we could win this fight?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a good point because the 
organizations, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the 
National Restaurant Association and others are out there already trying 
to discourage people from supporting this program. We will have a 
chance to deal with their arguments when we see what has actually 
happened in terms of the expansion of the restaurant industry and 
employment among restaurant workers. The Senator is no less interested 
in expanded employment or adequate income for restaurant workers than I 
am, and they still have done better with our modest increases in the 
past, and they will in the future.
  I want to ask if the Senator will agree with me on one other 
proposition. We will hear during the debate that at least a quarter of 
these are teenagers who are making the minimum wage. In my State, 
tuition at the University of Massachusetts in Boston costs $4297. These 
students are still 18 and 19 years old. They are teenagers, and many of 
them are working. These students need the money.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is my time. I ask unanimous consent 
to have 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Many of their parents never went to college. These are 
teenagers. These students are trying to earn enough to buy their books 
and maybe attend an athletic event once in a while or be able to pay in 
order to rent athletic equipment. These students--and yes, they are 
teenagers--are working long and hard, and they deserve the increase, 
too.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator asked about Minnesota. Just 
two final points.
  One, I was speaking on the floor earlier and I said that I think most 
families are focused on how you earn a decent living and how you give 
your children the care you know they need and deserve. I think the 
minimum wage bill is an important step in that direction along with 
whatever we can do on affordable child care and health care. That is 
the key to family income in this country.
  I spoke earlier about the record of inequality. Secretary Reich had a 
very important piece in the New York Times about it. But now we see, 
Mr. President, a merger with education because, as a matter of fact, I 
say to my colleagues and my friend from Massachusetts what I find when 
I travel around Minnesota--and I was a college teacher for 20 years--is 
that many students are taking 6 years to graduate and not 4 years 
because now students are working on the average of 25 or 30 hours a 
week at two minimum-wage jobs.
  So we now are talking about a piece of legislation that speaks to the 
issue of how families can have more income and also how students can 
afford their higher education. Many of these students are 18 and 19. 
But let's not trivialize the teen part. They are young women and young 
men who are working hard to be able to go to school. You had better 
believe that this minimum wage bill is really of critical importance to 
these young people as to whether or not they are going to be able to 
complete their education and do well financially.
  So the Senator is absolutely correct. There is the strongest 
correlation to education and affordable education which I think all of 
us agree is an absolutely crucial issue.
  Mr. President, today I am co-sponsoring a bill introduced by my 
colleague and friend Senator Ted Kennedy, cosponsored by a number of 
others, a measure which I consider to be one of the most important 
items we can pass and enact this year--the ``American Family Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 1998.'' Our bill would increase the minimum wage by 
50 cents a year during each of the next three years. After that, it 
would index further increases in the minimum wage to increases in the 
cost of living.
  This 3-year increase of $1.50--raising the federal minimum wage to 
$6.65/hour by September 1 of the year 2000, and

[[Page S54]]

pegging it to inflation in succeeding years--is the most immediate and 
practical step we can take to deliver to American working families a 
message of economic justice and principle. The message is this: if you 
work hard and play by the rules in America, you should not live in 
poverty. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case today for many 
working Americans with families. We need to address that problem.
  Full time work at minimum wage generates an income of approximately 
$10,700 a year. That's $2,600 below the poverty line for a family of 
three in this country. Minimum wage is not a living wage in America 
today. Even after the most recent increase, the federal minimum wage is 
worth far less in real dollars than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.
  Remember, the minimum wage disproportionately affects women. Sixty 
percent of those earning the minimum wage are women. Teachers' aides, 
child care providers, service-sector employees--some of the hardest 
working people in America, performing crucial tasks. Many of these 
women are single heads of households with child. One of the quickest 
ways we as a Congress could take a step toward real gender equity with 
regard to pay would be to pass an increase in the minimum wage and send 
it to the President. I am sure he will sign it. That would immediately 
improve the economic situation of millions of working women, many with 
families.
  Increasing the minimum wage will benefit those who need it most in 
America--adults, women, working families. Seventy-five percent of those 
currently receiving minimum wage workers are adults; 60 percent are 
women; 50 percent work more than 35 hours a week; 82 percent work at 
least 20 hours a week.
  Look at a few numbers which tell a story.
  The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently released a 
report showing that income inequality grew in 48 of 50 states since the 
late 1970s. The decline in real incomes of the poorest one-fifth of 
families with children in America averaged 21 percent, or $2,500.
  Since 1968, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, grew by 115 
percent while the purchasing power of the minimum wage declined by 30 
percent.
  To reflect the purchasing power it maintained in 1968, today's 
minimum wage would have to be at $7.33/hour, not $5.15. So even a 
carefully charted increase to $6.65/hour will not make up the entire 
difference, but it will put us back on a road to responsibly 
representing our constituents.
  For nearly the last two decades, the bottom 20 percent of income 
earners in this country haven't experienced growth like most Americans. 
Instead, they have lost 9 percent in real family income growth, while 
the top 20 percent have gained more than 26 percent.
  Our bill is about justice. In recent weeks and months, I have 
traveled around this country: East and South Central Los Angeles, 
Baltimore, Chicago, the Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, as well as in my 
home state of Minnesota. I have repeatedly seen the struggles of hard 
working, dedicated people who want to improve their lives, but they 
can't find jobs that will pay them a livable wage.
  Now increasing the minimum wage will not compromise the economy and 
it will not harm the falling unemployment rate. Consider that in 
September 1996, just one month prior to the minimum wage increase from 
$4.25 to $4.75, the national unemployment rate was at 5.2 percent. By 
December 1997, two months after the second annual increase to $5.15, 
the U.S. unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent. And retail trade jobs, 
where a disproportionate amount of low wage workers are employed, 
increased slightly. Job opportunities in this country are not 
compromised by this legislation. In fact, the very importance and value 
of job opportunities to all Americans is exactly what is enforced by 
this legislation.
  Today's economy continues to perform well. Yet the minimum wage--part 
of that same economy--has progressively fallen back. In 1996, we 
started to pave the right path to justice by increasing the minimum 
wage, but more must be done.
  So I stand in support as the first co-sponsor of this bill and urge 
Democrats and Republicans alike to support Senator Kennedy's initiative 
and to support the American workforce by passing the Family Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 1998. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for 2 final minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this chart here illustrates very clearly 
the purchasing power of the minimum wage since 1959. All of these 
figures are in 1997 dollars, adjusted for inflation. In 1968 the real 
value of the minimum wage was $7.33. In 1995 it was down to $4.32 an 
hour. In the 1996 legislation, we added two additional steps. On 
September 1, 1997, the second step took effect, raising the minimum 
wage's value to $5.15 an hour. If we do nothing, by the year 2000, it 
will be $4.66 an hour. Our legislation proposes that it go up to $6.18, 
in three steps. Again, this is the what the minimum wage will buy in 
1997 dollars, if our legislation becomes law. Even that increase will 
leave minimum wage earners below where they were in the 1960s and 
1970s. The legislation is a very modest step forward, and I believe 
that working families have earned it.
  I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles that 
I mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Economists Alter Minimum-Wage View--New Data Show Small Increase 
                           Doesn't Cost Jobs

                           (By David Wessel)

       Washington.--Revisiting their own controversial research, a 
     pair of prominent economists concluded that better data 
     support their original assertion: Raising the minimum wage 
     moderately doesn't cost jobs.
       In the new work, David Card of the University of California 
     at Berkeley and Alan Krueger of Princeton University used 
     reports filed by employers and collated by the U.S. Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics. Their earlier work, an influential element 
     in Democrats' successful campaign to lift the minimum wage, 
     relied on a telephone survey of employers that their critics 
     attacked.
       With the new data, the economists looked at fast-food 
     employment in New Jersey and Pennsylvania at two key points: 
     first, after an 80-cent-an-hour increase in New Jersey's 
     minimum wage in April 1992 that didn't affect workers in 
     Pennsylvania and, second, after an October 1996 50-cent 
     increase in the federal minimum wage to $4.75. The federal 
     increase only affected Pennsylvania because New Jersey's 
     minimum wage was above the federal level.


                          Little or No Effect

       ``The New Jersey (1992) minimum wage increase had either no 
     effect, or a small positive effect, on fast-food industry 
     employment in New Jersey vis-a-vis eastern Pennsylvania,'' 
     the economists conclude. Between February and November 1992, 
     fast-food employment grew by 3% in New Jersey but fell by 
     between 1% and 3% in eastern Pennsylvania. What's more, after 
     the October 1996 wage boost that affected only Pennsylvania, 
     fast-food employment rose more sharply in that state than New 
     Jersey. Between December 1995 and December 1996, fast-food 
     employment grew by 11% in eastern Pennsylvania counties and 
     by 2% in New Jersey.
       The argument by Mr. Card and Mr. Krueger, a former chief 
     economist in the Clinton Labor Department, challenged the 
     conventional wisdom among mainstream economists that raising 
     the price of workers' labor meant employers would buy less of 
     it. The Clinton administration embraced it. House Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich derided it as ``spurious'' and House Majority 
     Leader Richard Armey, an economist, called it 
     ``counterintuitive.'' Several big-name economists dismissed 
     it.
       The details of the analysis and data drew fire first from 
     an employers' group, the Employment Policy Institute, that 
     gathered data of its own to refute it. Later, economists 
     David Neumark of Michigan State University and William 
     Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board supplemented EPI's data 
     with data of their own and argued that fast-food payrolls did 
     what economic textbooks predicted; grew more slowly in New 
     Jersey than in Pennsylvania after the 1992 New Jersey wage 
     increase.


                          Remains Unpersuaded

       Mr. Wascher isn't persuaded by the new data. ``We never 
     found very strong negative effects of the minimum wage on 
     fast-food establishments,'' he said yesterday. ``We 
     speculated these franchise agreements are very restrictive 
     and that the bigger effects might be at mom-and-pop 
     establishments.'' He said BLS data for all eating and 
     drinking establishments, not just fast-food outlets, show 
     that payrolls in New Jersey generally rise more than those in 
     Pennsylvania between February and November, but that the 
     difference was smaller in 1992 when the New Jersey minimum 
     wage was raised than in 1991 or 1993.
       The new Card-Krueger work, to be published shortly as a 
     working paper by Princeton, hasn't been widely circulated yet 
     among

[[Page S55]]

     their critics. The authors acknowledge that their data don't 
     tell whether employers facing higher minimum wages reduce the 
     average hours per worker; the figures only count how many 
     people were employed.
       Despite assertions from employer groups and many mainstream 
     economists that lifting the minimum wage would reduce the 
     number of jobs available to young and unskilled workers and 
     increase unemployment, the recent strength of the economy has 
     pushed the jobless rate down. Retailers and other employers 
     of low-wage workers are complaining more about labor 
     shortages than wage increases.
       The federal minimum wage was lifted to $5.15 an hour on 
     Sept. 1, 1997.
                                                                    ____


Chicken Feed: Minimum Wage Is Up, But a Fast-Food Chain Notices Little 
  Impact--Economic Boom Lifts Profit; Firm's Main Problem Is Hiring, 
             Retaining People--Pressures on Job Are Rising

                        (By Bernard Wysocki Jr.)

       Falls Church, Va.--The minimum wage was a hot issue 18 
     months ago, pitting business against labor, Republicans 
     against Democrats.
       In April 1996, David Rosenstein, a fast-food entrepreneur, 
     staunchly opposed a proposed two-step rise to $5.15 an hour 
     as ``a bad idea.'' The middle managers at his 13 Popeyes 
     Chicken & Biscuits restaurants didn't know how they would 
     cope.
       How times have changed.
       Today, despite the now-higher minimum wage, Mr. 
     Rosenstein's restaurants are prospering. Operating profits 
     are up 11% from last year on a 10% rise in sales, which are 
     running at a $14 million annual clip. He recently raised 
     prices. He has opened a new store. And in a sign of boom 
     times, he knocked out a wall and doubled the size of his 
     spacious office.
       ``The economy is good. Business is good,'' says the 49-
     year-old Mr. Rosenstein, whose restaurants are franchisees of 
     Atlanta-based AFC Enterprises. What about that minimum-wage 
     increase? ``I think we saw it in more dire terms than it 
     worked out,'' he says.


                              few protests

       Indeed, the minimum-wage increase has turned into one of 
     the nonevents of 1997, thanks mostly to the economy's 
     continuing strength. Low-wage Americans--nearly 10 million 
     workers, by some estimates--got a raise. But amid the current 
     prosperity, hardly anybody noticed. So, when the second step, 
     a 40-cent-an-hour raise, kicked in seven weeks ago, on Sept. 
     1, few cheered, but even fewer protested.
       Critics had argued that higher wages would squeeze profits 
     because employers, beset by competitors, couldn't raise 
     prices. Nationwide, it is hard to generalize about that. But 
     Mr. Rosenstein recently raised nearly every price on his 
     menu--biscuits went up 20% and the average item 5%--with 
     hardly a peep from customers. ``I'm surprised, very 
     surprised,'' says Kenneth Hahn, the chain's director of 
     operations.
       Others had warned that raising the minimum wage would 
     create inflated pay demands by those making slightly above-
     minimum wages. Not here. Work crews at Mr. Rosenstein's 
     Virginia stores were averaging $5.54 an hour in 1996 and get 
     only $5.60 today--a raise of 1%.
       And although some academics say higher wages draw better-
     skilled teenagers out of school and into the workplace, 
     displacing lower-skilled people, the Popeyes managers see 
     nothing of the kind. If anything, their talent pool is 
     weakening, drained by the booming economy.


                           collateral damage

       Even though Mr. Rosenstein's worst fears weren't realized, 
     lots of other things have happened in the past 18 months.
       A tour of these Popeyes stores and conversations with the 
     fry cooks and biscuit makers, the store supervisors and 
     managers indicate that while the minimum-wage issue has 
     retreated to the back burner of American politics, the big 
     issues now are, in a sense, the collateral damage of the 
     economic boom; intensified competition, a scarcity of good 
     workers, high staff turnover and job burnout.
       The wage increase itself has had major impact at only one 
     outlet, at the Popeyes store on Rhode Island Avenue in the 
     District of Columbia. There, the local hourly minimum is set 
     at $1 over the federal minimum, and on Sept. 1, the 
     district's minimum went to $6.15. Managers have cut back 
     hours and piled more work on employees. Mr. Rosenstein says 
     the operating profits at this one outlet fell to $34,000 for 
     the 12 months ended Aug. 31 from $46,000 a year earlier.


                          Escaping to Maryland

       And so, when his Metropolitan Restaurant Management Co. 
     looked for expansion sites in and around Washington, he went 
     across the line into Maryland and opened there, largely to 
     escape the $6.15 wage.
       As several U.S. cities propose a so-called living wage, 
     with minimums higher than the federal one, opponents such as 
     the employer-backed Employment Policies Institute in 
     Washington argue that low-wage employers will shun higher-
     wage locales. There may be something to that, as shown by Mr. 
     Rosenstein's unwillingness to open another store in the high-
     wage district.
       The really gut issue facing his company, however, is 
     intensified competition. That may seem ironic: Its financial 
     results are good, and the price increases have held. But on 
     the darker side, the managers and the workers alike say that, 
     on a day-to-day operating basis, the competitive environment 
     has become tougher.
       Back in the spring of 1996, Mohammed Isah, who manages the 
     Popeyes store on City Line Avenue in West Philadelphia, 
     fretted about the impending wage increase and wondered where 
     the extra productivity he would need would come from. He 
     vowed to scale back part-timers' hours and increase their 
     workloads.
       And he did. Sitting at one of his tables, Mr. Isah, once a 
     bank manager in his native Nigeria, nods in the direction of 
     a middle-age employee sweeping the floor. When the wage went 
     up on Sept. 1 he halved her hours. Meantime, full-timers have 
     taken up that slack. Nowadays, one person sets up the 
     registers, then starts the biscuits, then does assorted 
     odd tasks before business picks up at lunch time. Mr. Isah 
     freely concedes that people are working twice as hard for 
     their modest raise.
       Yet the increased minimum wage isn't what is really driving 
     Mr. Isah's hardball productivity drive. A few months ago, a 
     Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet opened just a half-mile down 
     City Line Avenue. Even the Popeyes managers agree that it's 
     quite a site for a fast-food place: a renovated old home with 
     fireplaces, walls sconces and a winding staircase.
       When Kentucky Fried Chicken opened, Mr. Isah's sales 
     declined. Although some business has now returned, his sales 
     are running 2% below 1996 levels, and his operating profit is 
     down 10%. His bosses say he is a good, hard-working manager, 
     but the harsh business environment is putting pressure on him 
     and his staff. ``You have people doing two or three people's 
     jobs. Eventually, it gets to them,'' he says, and they are 
     burning out from overwork. Turnover is rising as good people 
     search for jobs elsewhere. Looking ahead, he sees more 
     problems. He even has a written list of his concerns: Morale 
     will drop. Quality of work will fall. Dependability will 
     wane. Absenteeism will rise.


                         Risk of Vicious Circle

       The Popeyes managers know that trimming staff can be self-
     defeating, and they haven't eliminated any full-time 
     positions in the past 18 months. If hours drop, service 
     declines, and sales and profit can suffer. A vicious circle 
     can develop.
       Mr. Rosenstein's New Castle, Del., outlet along busy Route 
     13 is gripped by more competition--not only for business but 
     also for talent. The store manager there left the company 
     earlier this year to run a Boston Market outlet. The Popeyes 
     chain, which pays its store managers $30,000 to $45,000 a 
     year, couldn't match the Boston Market pay, Frank Williams, 
     the district manager, says. Outer managers had to pitch in 
     until a replacement was found.
       As the store suffered from patchwork management, business 
     faltered. In addition, crew hours were cut back, and 
     cleanliness suffered. That's the sort of thing that really 
     rankles Mr. Williams, and, on a recent day, he was sitting in 
     the New Castle restaurant, drawing up a long list of tasks 
     for his store manager.
       Popeyes managers are in a bind. They can push their people 
     only so far, especially in an economy with so many job 
     opportunities. They need to keep their employees. In the more 
     prosperous locations, such as the Popeyes in Rockville, Md., 
     an acute labor shortage keeps pushing up the work crews' pay. 
     In April 1996, it averaged $6.01 an hour; today, it averages 
     $6.42 Managers there say the increase has nothing to do with 
     federal law and everything to do with supply and demand.
       ``My senior fry cook, he makes $8.75 an hour,'' says Mohsen 
     Eghtesadi, district manager for Metropolitan's two Maryland 
     restaurants. He waves his hand toward the Rockville Pike, a 
     busy commercial strip. ``Look at all these sit-down 
     restaurants opening up. They can pay $10 an hour, $12 an 
     hour. For us to keep good employees, we really have to 
     increase their pay.''
       ``It's a chicken war,'' Mr. Eghtesadi says. He adds, with a 
     wry smile, ``And we are chicken warriors.''


                       much competition for staff

       His problems are just a tiny example of the sharper 
     competition for talent. With much of the economy thriving, 
     the national unemployment rate has dropped below 5%. In the 
     fast-food business, expansion-minded chains need experienced 
     supervisors and managers. Even good fry cooks, earning $8 an 
     hour or so, are constantly vulnerable to raids by other 
     chains.
       Mr. Hahn, the director of operations, spends far more time 
     these days weeding out the losers among job candidates. The 
     chain does extensive background checks on all supervisors and 
     puts managerial candidates through a series of psychological 
     pencil-and-paper tests. The Popeyes bosses try to find 
     candidates whose profiles match those of their successful 
     store managers. Matchups have become rare.
       At entry-level employment, more applicants are young women 
     looking for jobs as part of the welfare-to-work movement. 
     With fast-food employers inundated by welfare recipients, the 
     minimum-wage issue takes a back seat to other concerns.
       Seven weeks ago, Sharie Ross got a raise to $5.15 an hour, 
     serving up fast food at the New Castle outlet, up from the 
     $5-an-hour minimum in Delaware. She hardly noticed because, 
     as a welfare-to-work employee, her main worry is the gradual 
     loss of her welfare benefits.

[[Page S56]]

       ``I still get food stamps; that's $98 a month,'' says Ms. 
     Ross, 20. But when she started work five months ago, the 
     state of Delaware picked up the cost of day care for her two 
     children. To her, keeping that $200-a-month subsidy is more 
     important than a few cents an hour in extra pay.
       Yet a booming economy can mask all sorts of operating 
     difficulties. That is true in many businesses, and it is true 
     at Mr. Rosenstein's fried-chicken empire. One rule of thumb: 
     If sales growth continues, all the other problems are 
     manageable. In the past 18 months, sales at many of Mr. 
     Rosenstein's stores have grown at double digits--and have 
     surprised him. ``You budget for a 2% or 3% rise. To budget 
     for a 10% rise is, well, irresponsible,'' he says.
       But in his Prince William County, Va., stores, sales are 
     booming. He pulls out his sales projections--$3,751,000 this 
     year, up more than 10%. His hourly wage costs are up 7%, 
     mostly because hours worked are up 6%. His projected 1997 
     profit at these stores is $270,000, up from $234,000 last 
     year.
       Mr. Rosenstein thinks his company will continue to be 
     prosperous if the economy keeps booming. But, he adds, ``If 
     there's a downturn, it's going to be nasty.''
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1573

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     1998''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       (a) Wage.--Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
     less than--
       ``(A) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1998;
       ``(B) $6.15 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1999;
       ``(C) $6.65 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 2000; and
       ``(D) beginning on September 1, 2001, $6.65 an hour, as 
     adjusted by the Secretary on each September 1 to reflect 
     increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
     during the most recent 12-month period for which data are 
     available.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on September 1, 1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 1574. A bill to prohibit the cloning of humans; to the Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources.


                   the human cloning prohibition act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
prohibit the cloning of humans. This act would further extend last 
year's efforts by last year's law which banned federal funding of human 
cloning. Under my bill, there would be an outright ban on human 
cloning, whether publicly or privately funded.
  The scientific term for human cloning is ``human somatic cell nuclear 
transfer.'' That is what my bill would ban. My bill would not undermine 
or stifle scientific research in the area of genetics that promises to 
combat and cure disease in humans. This research includes the cloning 
of animals and human cells other than embryo cells.
  I am not a scientist and do not wish to insert myself in the process 
of scientific research and advances, from which we all benefit. 
However, when science crosses over the boundary of what is ethically 
and morally appropriate research, I have an obligation to respond on 
behalf of myself and my constituents. Congress--and its law-making 
authority--is the only mechanism available to address the issue of 
human cloning and assert the will of the American people that it not go 
forward.
  We have a responsibility to protect the moral and ethical foundation 
upon which this country was built. In recognizing that responsibility, 
both the Senate and House committees with jurisdiction have carefully 
looked at the implications of moving forward with legislation to ban 
human cloning. They have tapped the experts in the science of genetics 
and have confirmed what we as laymen believe--the cloning of humans is 
morally unacceptable and scientifically dangerous.
  During a March 12, 1997, House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on 
Technology hearing, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission 
testified that there is sufficient cause to warrant legislation because 
a developing child would be subject to undue harm as a result of 
current unscientifically plausible technology. In summarizing the 
Commission's report before the Subcommittee, its Chairman, Dr. Harold 
T. Shapiro, noted that this deficiency in the technology was coupled 
with far-reaching concern that human cloning is not deemed morally 
acceptable by society as a whole.
  A final hearing was held July 22, 1997, during which Dr. Hessell 
Bouma, a professor of biology, said it best. The transcript states that 
``he stressed the uniqueness, freedom, and respect intrinsic to human 
life. Cloning, Dr. Bouma testified, is in direct violation of all 
three, and therefore should be prohibited by law.''
  Mr. President, I don't think any of us can argue with that.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to take swift action and impose a 
ban on human cloning. We are all aware of the activities in Chicago to 
move forward with a human cloning experiment, so time is of the 
essence. I would ask that we work together over the coming weeks to 
pass a bill to prevent this and future efforts to wrongly clone humans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1574

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Human Cloning Prohibition 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       Congress finds that the Federal Government has a moral 
     obligation to the nation to prohibit the cloning of humans.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN CLONING.

       (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person to--
       (1) clone a human being; or
       (2) conduct research for the purpose of cloning a human 
     being or otherwise creating a human embryo.
       (b) Federal Funds.--No Federal funds may be obligated or 
     expended to knowingly conduct or support any project of 
     research the purpose of which is to clone a human being or 
     otherwise create a human embryo.
       (c) Definition.--As used in subsection (a), the terms 
     ``clone'' and ``cloning'' mean the practice of creating or 
     attempting to create a human being by transferring the 
     nucleus from a human cell from whatever source into a human 
     egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed for the 
     purpose of, or to implant, the resulting product to initiate 
     a pregnancy that could result in the birth of a human being.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--Whoever is found to be in violation 
     of section 2 shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more 
     than $5,000 for each such violation.
       (b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds.--A individual found to 
     be in violation of section 2 shall not be eligible to receive 
     any Federal funding for research regardless of the type of 
     research being conducted for a period of 5-years after such 
     violation.

                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 322

  At the request of Mr. Grams, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 322, A bill to amend the 
Agricultural market Transition Act to repeal the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact provision.


                                 S. 323

  At the request of Mr. Shelby, the name of the Senator from Virginia 
(Mr. Warner) was added as a cosponsor of S. 323, A bill to amend title 
4, United States Code, to declare English as the official language of 
the Government of the United States.


                                 S. 412

  At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the names of the Senator from 
Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 412, A bill to provide for a national 
standard to prohibit the operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated 
individuals.


                                 S. 497

  At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the name of the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 497, A bill to amend the 
National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to repeal the 
provisions of the Acts that require employees to pay union dues or fees 
as a condition of employment.


                                 S. 570

  At the request of Mr. Nickles, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 570, A bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain small 
businesses from the mandatory electronic fund transfer system.

[[Page S57]]

                                 S. 578

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 578, A bill to 
permit an individual to be treated by a health care practitioner with 
any method of medical treatment such individual requests, and for other 
purposes.


                                 S. 659

  At the request of Mr. Glenn, the name of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 659, A bill 
to amend the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990 to 
provide for implementation of recommendations of the United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery Restoration 
Study Report.


                                 S. 769

  At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from 
Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) was added as a cosponsor of S. 769, A bill 
to amend the provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1986 to expand the public's right to know about toxic 
chemical use and release, to promote pollution prevention, and for 
other purposes.


                                 S. 836

  At the request of Mr. Abraham, the name of the Senator from Texas 
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 836, A bill to offer 
small businesses certain protections from litigation excesses.


                                 S. 887

  At the request of Ms. Moseley-Braun, the names of the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Robb), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 887, A bill to establish in the National 
Service the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program, 
and for other purposes.


                                 S. 943

  At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Maryland 
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 943, A bill to amend 
title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of the Act 
popularly known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to aviation 
accidents.


                                S. 1021

  At the request of Mr. Hagel, the names of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 1021, A bill to amend title 5, United States 
Code, to provide that consideration may not be denied to 5, United 
States Code, to provide that consideration may not be denied to 
preference eligibles applying for certain positions in the competitive 
service, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1081

  At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Virginia 
(Mr. Robb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1081, A bill to enhance the 
rights and protections for victims of crime.


                                S. 1104

  At the request of Mr. Hollings, the name of the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1104, A bill to 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to make corrections in maps 
relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.


                                S. 1141

  At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Indiana 
(Mr. Lugar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1141, A bill to amend the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 to take into account newly developed 
renewable energy-based fuels and to equalize alternative fuel vehicle 
acquisition incentives to increase the flexibility of controlled fleet 
owners and operators, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1215

  At the request of Mr. Aschcroft, the name of the Senator from Texas 
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1215, A bill to 
prohibit spending Federal education funds on national testing.


                                S. 1222

  At the request of Mr. Chafee, the name of the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1222, A bill to catalyze 
restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient financing of 
projects and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal 
restoration programs, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1237

  At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1237, A bill to amend the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to further improve the 
safety and health of working environments, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1244

  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Allard) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1244, A bill to amend title 
11, United States Code, to protect certain charitable contributions, 
and for other purposes.


                                S. 1260

  At the request of Mr. Gramm, the names of the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Smith), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) were added as cosponsors of S. 1260, A 
bill to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 to limit the conduct of securities class actions under 
State law, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1293

  At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1293, A bill 
to improve the performance outcomes of the child support enforcement 
program in order to increase the financial stability and well-being of 
children and families.


                                S. 1307

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1307, A bill to 
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect 
to rules governing litigation contesting termination or reduction of 
retiree health benefits and to extend continuation coverage to retirees 
and their dependents.


                                S. 1311

  At the request of Mr. Lott, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. 
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1311, A bill to impose certain 
sanctions on foreign persons who transfer items contributing to Iran's 
efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles.


                                S. 1320

  At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from 
Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1320, A bill to 
provide a scientific basis for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
assess the nature of the association between illnesses and exposure to 
toxic agents and environmental or other wartime hazards as a result of 
service in the Persian Gulf during the Persian Gulf War for purposes of 
determining a service connection relating to such illnesses, and for 
other purposes.


                                S. 1326

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1326, A bill to 
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for medicaid 
coverage of all certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse 
specialists services.


                                S. 1334

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Hagel) were added as cosponsors of S. 1334, A bill to amend title 10, 
United States Code, to establish a demonstration project to evaluate 
the feasibility of using the Federal Employees Health Benefits program 
to ensure the availability of adequate health care for Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries under the military health care system.
  At the request of Mr. Faircloth, his name was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 1334, supra.


                                S. 1360

  At the request of Mr. Abraham, the names of the Senator from Idaho 
(Mr. Craig), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 1360, A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform 
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify and improve the 
requirements for the development of an automated entry-exit control 
system, to enhance land border control and enforcement, and for other 
purposes.


                                S. 1379

  At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S.

[[Page S58]]

1379, A bill to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and 
the National Security Act of 1947 to require disclosure under the 
Freedom of Information Act regarding certain persons, disclose Nazi war 
criminal records without impairing any investigation or prosecution 
conducted by the Department of Justice or certain intelligence matters, 
and for other purposes.


                                S. 1482

  At the request of Mr. Coats, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 1482, A bill to amend section 223 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 to establish a prohibition on commercial 
distribution on the World Wide Web of material that is harmful to 
minors, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1554

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Alabama 
(Mr. Sessions) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1554, A bill to provide 
for relief from excessive punitive damage awards in cases involving 
primarily financial loss by establishing rules for proportionality 
between the amount of punitive damages and the amount of economic loss.


                    Senate Concurrent Resolution 30

  At the request of Mr. Helms, the names of the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Hatch), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) were added as 
cosponsors of Senate Concurrent Resolution 30, A concurrent resolution 
expressing the sense of the Congress that the Republic of China should 
be admitted to multilateral economic institutions, including the 
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development.

                          ____________________