[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.
____________________