[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 115 (Thursday, September 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9903-S9907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under the leadership of President 
Clinton, the country has enjoyed six years of economic growth. 
Unemployment is at its lowest level in a generation. Inflation is the 
lowest in 40 years. Despite this week's gymnastics by the stock market, 
economic indicators continue to be strong. Job growth is projected to 
continue throughout this year, and inflation is predicted to remain at 
historically low levels.
  But for most Americans, it's someone else's boom. Too many citizens 
are just one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Facing a sudden health 
crisis, a divorce, or some other family emergency--these families often 
have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
  My Republican colleagues respond with legislation to make it easier 
for banks and credit card companies to squeeze these already-struggling 
families even harder. I say, giant corporations don't need the help as 
much as families do.
  And the best way to provide effective help is to raise the minimum 
wage. The amendment I have introduced today will raise the minimum wage 
by 50 cents on January 1 next year and another 50 cents on January 1, 
2000. As we begin the next century, the minimum wage will be $6.15 an 
hour.
  Mr. President, as this chart illustrates, we can see where the 
minimum wage has gone since 1955 in terms of real dollars.
  We were back here at $4.34 in 1988. We raised the minimum wage here 
in a two-step procedure, and then it declined in terms of real 
purchasing power. And now we are talking about raising it up to what 
would be $6.15 an hour in the year 2000. But if you look at this chart, 
Mr. President, you will see that the actual purchasing power in the 
year 2000 in today's dollars would be only $5.76. This chart is a 
constant, real dollar chart. And even if we raise it to this level, we 
will still be below where the minimum wage was for some 15 years from 
the 1960s through the 1970s under Republicans and Democrats alike--
below that level at a time of extraordinary prosperity for millions of 
Americans--millions of Americans--even with that increase.
  If we do not increase it, if we do not accept this amendment, we will 
find out that the minimum wage effectively will be not $5.15 an hour, 
but $4.82 an hour, which will put us close to the lowest levels in the 
last 35 years in terms of purchasing power for working families at the 
lower end of the economic ladder.
  Those at the bottom of the economic ladder have not received their 
fair share of the nation's remarkable growth. Working 40 hours a week, 
52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers earn just $10,700--$2,900 below 
the poverty level for a family of three.
  In the midst of what many experts are calling ``the best economy 
ever,'' 12 million working Americans are still earning poverty-level 
wages.
  For them, survival is the daily goal. If they work hard enough and 
their hours are long enough, they can make ends meet--but only barely. 
They don't have time for their families. They can't participate 
adequately in activities with their children.
  They can't afford to buy birthday presents or do the countless other 
things that most of us take for granted.
  We know who minimum wage workers are. They assist teachers in 
classrooms across the country. They care for the chronically ill in 
their homes. They are child care workers and aides in nursing homes. 
They sell us groceries at the supermarket, and serve us coffee at the 
local coffee shop. They clean corridors and empty trash in office 
buildings in countless communities around the nation.
  They are workers like Valerie Bell, a custodian for a contractor in 
Baltimore, who told us what a higher minimum wage means in human terms. 
For workers and their families, it means far more than dollars and 
cents. It means dignity. As she said, ``We no longer have to receive 
food stamps or other social services to supplement our incomes. We can 
fix up our homes and invest in our neighborhoods. We can spend more at 
the local grocery store. We can work two low-wage jobs, rather than 
three low-wage jobs, and spend more time with our families. Our 
utilities won't be cut off. We can pay the medical bills we accumulated 
from not having health benefits in our jobs.''
  Minimum wage workers are people like Cathy Adams, a home health aide 
from Viola, IL. Cathy is a high school graduate who is currently 
enrolled in a computer training program at the local

[[Page S9904]]

community college. She lives with her two daughters, who are 10 and 11.
  Cathy works 11 and one-half hours a day, five days a week, caring for 
a woman with multiple sclerosis. She bathes her, dresses her and feeds 
her. She does the grocery shopping, the laundry, and the cleaning. She 
runs errands and schedules doctors' appointments.
  Cathy likes her job and is fond of her client. But she finds it hard 
to live on $5.30 an hour. She told us in March that ``I literally live 
paycheck to paycheck. After paying the bills, whatever is left over 
goes to groceries. I have $9 in my savings account and worry about 
being able to save for my girls' education. We rarely have money to go 
to a movie or eat out at a restaurant.
  The other day, my girls asked me to take them ice skating at school. 
While it only cost $10, I had to think twice about whether we could 
afford it.''
  And minimum wage earners are workers like Kimberly Frazier, a child 
care aide from Philadelphia. Kimberly works full time and earns $5.20 
an hour. She is a single mother with three children.
  Kimberly says that her salary barely covers her bills--rent of $250 a 
month, food, utilities, clothing for three growing children, and 
carfare to get to work. Kimberly says, ``I can't afford a car and pay 
for gas and insurance so I rely on public transportation. If I had a 
car, I could get out to the places where there are better paying jobs. 
And, like all Americans, I dream of buying my own house so that I can 
raise my kids in a neighborhood that has less crime and more trees. But 
I know that, although I work and study as hard as I can, I will never 
have the down payment for a house earning the minimum wage.''
  Kimberly concluded that ``A dollar an hour probably doesn't sound 
like a lot to many people, but to me and my children it would mean a 
real improvement in our lives.''
  Workers like Valerie Bell, Cathy Adams, and Kimberly Frazier tell 
stories that are repeated in communities across the nation. That's why 
we say now is the time to raise the minimum wage.
  Nay-sayers parrot the same arguments they have always used against a 
fair increase. They claim an increase will damage the economy, cut 
jobs, and hurt the very people it's intended to help. The facts belie 
those claims.
  A study released May 6 by the Economic Policy Institute proves the 
point. The two most recent increases in the minimum wage did not cause 
the sky to fall. There was no measurable effect on jobs; no measurable 
effect on inflation. The only measurable effect on low-income workers 
was positive. They received the pay increase they deserved. Mr. 
President, 60 percent of the benefit of the 1996-1997 increases went to 
families in the bottom 40 percent of the income groups; a third of the 
benefit went to the poorest families, those in the bottom 20 percent. 
Nearly three-quarters of those who benefited were adults over the age 
of 20. On the average, minimum-wage workers contributed over half of 
their family's weekly earnings.
  The most recent data support the increase. Raising the minimum wage 
does not cause unemployment for men and women, adults, teens or anyone 
else. Look at the teenagers. We have a chart for the teenagers. The 
argument is made that the most vulnerable group is teenagers. But if we 
look at the employment levels for ages 16 through 19, before the 
minimum wage increased to $4.75 in 1996 and then to $5.15 in 1997, we 
see that the total employment for teenagers has risen steadily. Nearly 
400,000 more teenagers are working today than before the increase took 
effect. So increasing the minimum wage has not lowered teenage 
employment.
  Teenage unemployment has dropped dramatically during the same period, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate was 
nearly 17 percent when the minimum wage was first increased. Today the 
unemployment rate among teenagers is 14 percent, a drop of almost 20 
percent since the last increase.
  Minimum wage opponents typically claim that low-wage industries will 
lay off workers rather than pay a higher minimum wage. But look what 
happened in the retail industry where many low-wage workers are 
concentrated. In the year before the minimum wage was increased, retail 
employment grew by just under 400,000 jobs. In 1994 and 1995, before we 
increased the minimum wage to $4.75, there were 394,000 new retail 
jobs. In the eleven months since we raised the minimum wage, there have 
been 500,000 new retail jobs; retail employment has increased since the 
last raise. The argument that raising the minimum wage causes job loss 
for the most vulnerable, the teenagers and those who are the working 
poor, does not hold. The facts are not there. That argument cannot be 
made.
  Retail employment grew over 25 percent faster since the minimum wage 
was actually increased because, many economists believe, when you do 
get a respectable wage for minimum wage, people will go back to work 
and go to work and increasingly move off unemployment or the welfare 
system, because they are able to provide for their families.
  Despite these figures, too many of our Republican friends oppose 
giving minimum wage workers an additional $1 an hour. Instead, their 
priority is reforming bankruptcy laws by rewarding banks and credit 
card companies who target low-income families. That will be the item on 
the agenda, according to the majority leader. So today I am filing the 
minimum wage as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill.
  Democrats agree, plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else is 
the wrong priority. We need to do more for working families and 
communities across America. We can do more by raising the minimum wage, 
and with the strong support of President Clinton, Democrats in the 
Senate and House and some courageous Republicans, I intend to do so.
  I see my colleagues here. Let me just point out what this issue is 
really all about. This is a women's issue, because more than 60 percent 
of the recipients are women. This is a family issue, because many of 
those women have one child or more. So it is a children's issue. What 
kind of life are these children going to lead? What kind of atmosphere 
are they going to be growing up in? Are they going to have a parent 
available to them or is that parent going to be out working two or 
three jobs? Is that parent going to be able to treat that child with 
dignity?
  So this is an important issue. It's a family issue, a children's 
issue, a women's issue, and most of all, more than any other issue we 
will vote on here in the U.S. Senate, it is a defining fairness issue. 
It is a fairness issue. It is an issue whether America is going to say 
to those Americans who are prepared to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a 
year, that they will be able to live out of poverty. That is the issue.
  Are we going to back up the speeches here in the U.S. Senate that say 
we applaud work? We are talking about those who are working. If you are 
working, you deserve a fair wage. With the most extraordinary 
prosperity we have seen in recent times, with the kind of creation of 
wealth we all read about--the stories about $2 trillion being lost in 
the stock market in a period of 24 hours, we are talking about nickels 
and dimes for working men and women. We are not even talking about the 
kinds of increases Members of Congress have received during the same 
period of time. We are not talking about that, which is far in excess 
of what we are talking about for minimum wage workers. How bold will 
our colleagues be. Will they turn thumbs down on working families, and 
continue to accept the increases in their own pay received since the 
last increase in the minimum wage?
  This is a fairness issue. It is whether we, as a country, are going 
to follow a proud tradition of Republican Presidents and Democratic 
Presidents, Republican support in the Congress of the United States and 
Democratic support. This has been, until recent years, a bipartisan 
effort--a bipartisan effort. The question is whether it will continue 
to be a bipartisan effort, to try and make sure that working families 
in this country have a living wage.
  I hope this body will be willing to accept this amendment.
  I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have left? I have 
split time with Senator Durbin. However he would like me to do it, I 
say to my colleague from Massachusetts.

[[Page S9905]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has until 10:30.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take just a few minutes then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from 
Massachusetts once again to speak about one of the most important 
issues facing American working families. At a time when our economy is 
performing well, many Americans who work hard, who work full time, 
still live in poverty. I don't know what better signal we could send at 
the end of this Congress to people who are working hard, trying to 
provide for their families, than to pass the American Family Fair 
Minimum Wage Act.
  This increase in the minimum wage, which Senator Kennedy and I and 
others intend to offer as an amendment, perhaps to the Bankruptcy bill, 
is the single most important step we can take in this country 
immediately to promote economic justice. It would lift the federal 
minimum wage to $6.15 an hour over two years. That is a one-dollar-an-
hour raise for American workers who labor near the bottom rung of our 
economic ladder as we enter the 21st century. Many of these men and 
women work just as hard if not harder than many of us here in the 
Congress. Yet they very often live economically insecure lives. They 
deserve a raise.
  This modest raise would still leave the federal minimum wage at a 
level that would be worth less in real terms less than it was in 1968.
  We all know that glaring economic injustice and inequality remain in 
America. We can say that there are two Americas--one with greater and 
greater access to all the things that make life richer in 
possibilities, the other struggling daily to make ends meet. Even as 
our economy is generally performing well, the disparity between rich 
and poor continues to grow. If we want to declare that we honor work, 
we must value it properly.
  When I have toured the cafes of Minnesota, the streets of East L.A., 
the inner city of Chicago, people want to know how they can earn a 
decent living, how they can give their children the care they need and 
deserve. This minimum wage increase will help hard-working Minnesotans 
and all Americans in their efforts to make ends meet.
  Seventy-four percent of those who receive the minimum wage are 
adults. Sixty percent are women. Fifty percent work more than 35 hours 
a week. Eighty-two percent work at least 20 hours. These numbers tell a 
story. Raising the minimum wage will help hard-working Americans, many 
supporting families, to earn a decent living.
  The minimum wage disproportionately affects women, many of whom are 
single heads of households with children. Sixty percent of those who 
earn minimum wage are women. They are teachers' aides, they are child 
care providers. They work hard, yet they make $10,700 a year. That's 
$2,900 below the poverty line for a family of three. That's not a 
living wage. To lift themselves from poverty, they must earn a fair 
living wage.
  Some opponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that it will 
cause job losses and actually hurt workers. Recent experience 
effectively rebuts that claim. An Economic Policy Institute report 
released this year demonstrates that the minimum wage increase which 
took effect during 1996 and 1997 raised the wages of almost 10 million 
people. Seventy-one percent were adults and 58 percent were women. Just 
under half worked full-time. The research also found that the increases 
had disproportionately benefited low-income working households. 
Although households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution 
receive only 5 percent of total family income, they received 35 percent 
of the benefits from the minimum wage increases. Four different 
economic tests of these minimum-wage increases failed to find any 
systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 increases.
  The overall conclusion of the EPI report was that the 1996-97 
increase in the minimum wage proved to be an effective tool for raising 
the earnings of low-wage workers without lowering their employment 
opportunities. In other words, it worked.
  So now it is our responsibility to continue this process and assure 
that more Americans are able to earn a liveable wage. If we do not 
raise the minimum wage now, by the year 2000 the real value of the 
minimum wage will only be $4.28 an hour--almost as low as it was when 
the 1996 bill was enacted. We must act now to allow 12 million workers 
to benefit from this increase.
  In my home state, this minimum wage increase will benefit at least 
147,000 working Minnesotans and probably more because when we increase 
the minimum wage, it applies pressure to increase wages for people also 
making slightly more than the minimum wage. In 1996, 39% of Minnesota's 
workers paid at the minimum wage were between the ages of 16 and 21. 
Now, those numbers show us two important things: first, that the 
majority of Minnesotans just like the majority of Americans earning the 
minimum wage are adults. This issue is not just about helping 
youngsters looking for a paying job after school. But second, at the 
same time, many of these minimum wage workers between the ages of 16 
and 21 are trying to make money to stay in school, to pay the bills as 
they study to receive their college degrees. In Minnesota, we have 
record low unemployment, but state statistics show that increasing the 
minimum wage will not significantly affect the number of minimum wage 
jobs available for people needing the work to make ends meet.
  We celebrate the affluence that so many Americans have enjoyed in 
recent years. We need to make sure that the opportunity to share in 
that prosperity is available to all Americans, whether they are in the 
top 20 percent of wage-earners or the bottom 20 percent. People rightly 
believe that if you play by the rules in America, if you work 40 hours 
a week, 52 weeks a year, then you should not be poor.
  Increasing the minimum wage is about justice and a livable wage. The 
American public supports it, and we should pass it.
  Let me again thank Senator Kennedy. This will be my eighth year in 
the Senate. I don't think there is anybody in the U.S. Senate, I don't 
think there is anybody close, to Senator Ted Kennedy leading this 
fight. It is an economic justice fight. We raised the minimum wage to 
$5.15 an hour and people thought that couldn't be done. Senator Kennedy 
led that fight and we did it. I am confident we are going to do it 
again. We are going to have an amendment on the bankruptcy bill and are 
going to talk about raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over a 
2-year period, and I think we will have a positive vote for it. It is 
the right thing to do. The majority of the people support it and this 
should be a priority for us.
  Let me make three points. I heard my colleague from Massachusetts, 
and I am proud to join him in this effort and can't wait to have the 
debate. And I am proud to join Senator Durbin from Illinois. I heard my 
colleague from Massachusetts talk about this being a family issue. I am 
pretty well convinced now, from the Minnesota State Fair to talking 
with people in cafes, to traveling the country, that this really is a 
family issue. If there is one thing we could do--and, you know what, my 
colleague, the Presiding Officer, I think, agrees with me, at least in 
part of what I am about to say--if there is one thing we can do more 
than anything else, it is to try to basically say our major goal is to 
make sure that parents, or parent, can do their very best by their 
kids. Because if parents can do their best by their kids, they are 
going to do their best for Arkansas or Minnesota or Illinois or 
Massachusetts or for the country. And part of being able to do well for 
your kids is to have a living wage job, to be able to make a decent 
living.
  As I travel around the country, whether it be in metropolitan 
Minnesota or whether it be in the farm and rural areas, or whether it 
be Delta, MS, or East L.A. or Watts or inner-city Chicago or inner-city 
Baltimore, or where my wife's family are from, Letcher and Harlan 
Counties, Appalachia, KY, I think more than anything else, what people 
say to me--and my most recent focus group is the Minnesota State Fair, 
where about half the population comes in about 2 weeks--right now we 
have the State Fair there. People are focused on how to earn a decent 
living

[[Page S9906]]

and how to give their children the care they know they need and 
deserve.
  That is what it is all about.
  Mr. President, I think the policy goal for us ought to be as follows: 
When people work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, they should 
not be poor in America. I bet any poll will show that 80 percent of the 
people agree with that. When people work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 
hours a week, they shouldn't be poor in our country. It is that simple.
  There are a number of things we can do that will make a real 
difference for families. We can have affordable health care. We should 
do that. We haven't done it yet. We should have affordable child care. 
We should figure out ways of providing assistance to parents, whether 
their child is in a family child care setting or child care center or 
staying at home.
  The final thing we ought to do is raise the minimum wage; $5.15 to 
$6.15 is not unreasonable. My colleague from Massachusetts pointed out 
the work of the Economic Policy Institute. Everybody said the sky would 
fall. We have been going through this, I say to Senator Kennedy, for 
half a century: If you raise the minimum wage, people will lose jobs. 
It did not happen; it will not happen. People, in fact, will have more 
money to buy and consume, which helps our economy.
  Mr. President, I simply say to my colleagues that this is terribly 
important to women, because many of our minimum-wage workers are women. 
It is terribly important to adults, because the vast majority of 
minimum-wage workers are adults. It is also important to younger people 
whom maybe we do not view as adults--18, 19, 20, 21. Many of them are 
working to go to college.
  This is a matter of economic justice. It is a matter of elementary 
decency.
  I close with a more hard-hitting point. This is one I am not that 
comfortable with, but I think it really is true and needs to be said. 
My colleague said it once, and I will say it again. We don't have any 
hesitation in voting to raise our salaries. We make $130,000 a year. We 
ought to be willing to vote a decent minimum wage for people. We really 
ought to be able to do that.
  Colleagues have talked to me about how ``I need to make $130,000; I 
have two children, they are in college; I have an apartment here, live 
back home, it is very hard.'' My gosh, that is a pretty significant 
salary we make. I am not bashing public service. I believe in public 
service. But I think we also can vote for a higher minimum wage for 
working families in this country. We should do this, and we will bring 
this amendment to the floor.
  We are going to have a major debate, and all of us will be 
accountable as to how we vote. I hope we have an overwhelming vote for 
increasing the minimum wage. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Under the agreement this morning, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has time reserved until 
10:30.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank you, Mr. President.
  In this brief period of time, I first applaud my colleagues. I am 
glad that I have had the honor to serve in the U.S. Senate. I am 
particularly happy to represent a great State like Illinois. I am 
honored to be a Member of the Senate with my colleagues and, in 
particular, Senator Kennedy who, time and time again throughout his 
career, has taken this floor to speak for those who do not have a lobby 
in Washington, to speak for those who do not have a special interest 
group with a large political action committee. When Senator Kennedy 
comes to the floor to speak for the poor, for the dispossessed, for 
those who do not have health insurance and lack the opportunity many of 
us take for granted, I am honored in joining him. Now that I am in the 
Senate, I find I am joining him more and more. I want to do that this 
morning on this particular issue.
  A few years ago at one of the National Democratic Conventions--I 
believe it was San Francisco--a resident of the city of Chicago, Jesse 
Jackson, the Reverend Jesse Jackson--not to be confused with his son, 
the Congressman--took to the floor of the convention hall and gave a 
speech I still remember today.
  He spoke to that assembled multitude of people about why we are 
involved in politics and what Government should be about. Jesse Jackson 
said in his own way--and I can't even hope to get close to imitating 
his style or his conviction--he wanted to speak to us about the people 
who get up every morning and go to work every day. He talked about the 
people who clean the hotel rooms of the conventioneers. He said they 
get up every morning and they go to work every day. The people who 
remove the dishes and glasses and cups from your table in the 
restaurant, they go to work every day. The people who watch our 
children in day-care centers, they go to work every day. The people who 
guard our homes, our offices, our schools, they go to work every single 
day.
  For many of us, they are invisible. They are the work force of 
America. We tend to focus on the leadership, those who rise to the top 
in terms of the public spotlight, but for millions of Americans who are 
part of our workforce, they are such an essential part of American 
life, and, unfortunately, too many of us take them for granted.

  What Senator Kennedy is challenging us to do today as the U.S. Senate 
is not to ignore these workers and their families but, rather, to show 
them that we respect them, we respect the contribution they make to 
America, we honor their work, and we do it with a vote to increase 
their minimum wage.
  Many of the critics of increasing the minimum wage like to argue, 
``Well, if you raise the minimum wage, people are just going to lay off 
a lot of these workers; employers can't afford to pay them.'' That 
argument has been going on since the days of Franklin Roosevelt when we 
established the minimum wage. In very few instances, if ever, has that 
been the case.
  The most recent increase in the minimum wage had exactly the opposite 
impact. More and more people were employed. What Senator Kennedy is 
suggesting, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour over a 
2-year period of time, is hardly unreasonable. It is a reasonable way 
for us to address the needs of many families.
  We like to get on the floor here--and I have joined in this debate--
and talk about eliminating welfare, changing welfare as we know it, 
moving people from welfare to work. I say to my friends, this is part 
of moving people from welfare to work, giving to those new workers a 
decent pay, a decent wage. These are people who get up and go to work 
every single day.
  It is also about family dignity. If we really believe in family 
values, it has to go beyond a speech on the Senate floor. It has to go 
to a question of whether or not we will vote to make sure that families 
receive the money they need to make a living.
  A lot of people argue, ``Wait a minute, the minimum wage is just for 
kids, just for new employees--pay them a little amount of money because 
they don't have the experience.'' Seventy-four percent of the people on 
minimum wage are adults; 57 percent of the gains of the increase in 
this minimum wage will go to working families in the bottom 40 percent 
of the income scale.
  The other people argue, ``Wait a minute, don't worry about the 
minimum wage, that is for part-time workers.'' That is not the case. 
Fifty percent of the workers on minimum wage are full-time workers; 40 
percent of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
  What will $2,000 a year mean? That is what it will be if the increase 
goes through, $2,000 a year for a family. To a low-income family 
struggling to survive, it means money for groceries and rent, to pay 
for drugs, and to pay perhaps for health insurance for their children. 
It is the difference in quality of life which we cannot overlook.
  When the record is written about this Congress, questions will be 
asked: What did we achieve? Well, we haven't passed a budget 
resolution. We are now more than 4 months after the requirement to do 
it. We are struggling through the appropriations bills. I believe we 
will pass them. We have renamed the National Airport after President 
Ronald Reagan, and, folks, that's about it. Shouldn't we, before we 
leave, address the millions of Americans--200,000 in my home State of 
Illinois--who are, frankly, in a position where this increase in 
minimum wage could mean a dramatic increase in their quality of life?

[[Page S9907]]

  I will be coming to the floor on this bankruptcy bill debate. My 
friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa, and I have worked long and hard on 
this bill. We have our differences on it. But I will tell you this: I 
fully support what Senator Kennedy and Senator Wellstone have set out 
to do, to make sure it is part of this debate that we will increase the 
minimum wage.
  I hope those who are about to consider this issue, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, will understand that we are talking about people in 
America who get up and go to work every single day. They deserve our 
respect. They deserve an increase in their minimum wage.

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. shall 
be under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, or 
his designee.
  Senator Thomas is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will alleviate your 
concern that I will take the whole hour. Nevertheless, I think I will 
be joined by some of my colleagues.

                          ____________________