[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1655-S1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the distinguished and esteemed 
Senator from Massachusetts and I are reintroducing the Democratic 
proposal to raise the minimum wage.
  For those familiar with the legislation, they know that our 
legislation--the bill being reintroduced this afternoon--raises the 
minimum wage by $1 over 2 years, to $6.15 an hour. It is a modest but 
badly needed bill. It is overdue. It has already passed in the House, 
as most of our colleagues know, by an overwhelming margin, with strong 
bipartisan support. It deserves equally strong and bipartisan support 
in this Chamber.
  Among the many people who support our proposal are America's 
religious leaders--the U.S. Catholic Conference, the United Church of 
Christ, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the American Friends 
Service Committee, the Unitarian Association of Congregations, the 
Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and many more religious 
organizations. There are Republicans and Democrats in this coalition of 
religious leaders, and all have joined together in supporting the 
effort to raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour over 2 years.
  A job isn't only a source of income. A job, frankly, is a source of 
pride--or it should be. The Catholic Conference tells us that the 
minimum wage ought to reflect the principles of human dignity and 
economic justice. That is what it ought to reflect. There ought to be 
more to a minimum wage than simply what pay you get. There ought to be 
a sense of dignity and a sense of pride and a sense of accomplishment. 
There ought to be a feeling of goodwill in a workplace. But today's 
minimum wage precludes much of that. The U.S. Catholic Conference is 
right, the minimum wage today denies dignity, it denies economic 
justice.
  When you adjust the increased cost of living, the real value of the 
minimum wage today is almost $2.50 below what it was in 1968. This 
chart reflects, very graphically, what we are talking about. This shows 
the value of the minimum wage over the years.
  We started in 1968, with a value of the minimum wage, in today's 
dollars, at $7.66. But look what has happened. We come down now to the 
year 2000, and we have a minimum wage value of slightly over $5.
  But look what has been happening to the trendline representing the 
value of the minimum wage, in the last couple years. While there have 
been peaks the trend is actually going down. Next year, the value of 
the increase, in constant dollars, will be $4.90--almost $3 below what 
it was 30 years ago.
  Is it any wonder people are working two and three jobs? Is it any 
wonder we have lost some of the value, some of the dignity, some of the 
economic justice that was concomitant with the minimum wage of 30 years 
ago?
  What is remarkable is that all we are asking with this increase is to 
bring it to $5.85 next year. This proposal, as you can see, is still 
below the value of the minimum wage in 1968. That is what is 
disconcerting. If we do not raise the minimum wage by the end of the 
year, every single penny of the value of the 1996 increase will be 
erased by increases in the cost of living.
  As the chart shows, at one time we were able to increase the value of 
the minimum wage. Now, we would like to bring the wage back to its 
value in 1996. But look what happens. If we do not raise the wage, we 
will have eliminated entirely the previous increases of the minimum 
wage.
  I think people ought to remember, all we are trying to do is to 
maintain virtually the status quo. We are not even able to bring it up 
to where it should be. So forget economic justice, dignity--working 
families are living in poverty.
  The Senate passed the welfare reform legislation several years ago. 
We said we want to dignify work. We want to reward work. We want to 
ensure that people who work get the rewards that otherwise they would 
get on welfare. Look what has happened. As the minimum wage continues 
to decline, the poverty line continues to go up. So even with the 
minimum wage increase, minimum wage workers are going to be below the 
poverty line. How does that reward work? How does that keep people off 
welfare? If this gap continues to spread, where is the economic 
justice?
  Under our proposal, a full-time minimum-wage worker would earn 
$12,792 a year. That is an increase of $2,000. That doesn't sound like 
a lot of money. As I noted, right now minimum wage workers are below 
the poverty line. But the fact is, $2,000 would buy 7 months of 
groceries for a family of four.
  I was in a grocery store not long ago. Somebody came up to me, a 
total

[[Page S1656]]

stranger, and said: I know you are Senator Daschle. I hate to 
interrupt. I know you are out there buying your groceries. I am just 
one person, but I want to thank you. I want to thank you for trying to 
fight for the minimum wage increase because I am a minimum wage worker. 
I have two jobs. I have no health insurance. I have a daughter who is 
very sick. You don't know me, and you may never see me again. I'm 
telling you, Senator Daschle, I need that money, without it I don't 
know what I am going to do.
  You remember conversations like that. That brings life to charts like 
this.
  It is very troubling to me that, as we fight over the minimum wage 
this year, we are fighting about that worker, working two jobs, trying 
to stay above the poverty line with a sick daughter. We are trying to 
decide in the Senate today whether we are going to make this worker 
wait another year and lose $1,200 over that period of time in this era 
of economic growth and vitality.
  What do we say to that man in that grocery store: Look, I am glad you 
are working two jobs. I am sorry your daughter is sick? We want you to 
stay off welfare? And while we have more and more people becoming 
billionaires in this country, we are going to make you wait 1 more year 
to get that full $1 increase in minimum wage, even though it is $3 
below what it was in 1968?
  I can't do that. I don't know how anybody can do that. But that is 
what we are asking. That is why we care so much about this fight now. 
We didn't have the chance to bring it up last year. We forced it on the 
bankruptcy bill. Now the House, because I believe we forced that action 
last year, has acted, as they should, on minimum wage. I have some real 
problems with the House-passed tax package, but they acted 
appropriately on the minimum wage.
  Why, in Heaven's name, given the economic strength we have in this 
economy, given the extraordinary increase we have seen in income at 
just about all levels but the lowest, why would we make that man, or 
anybody like him, wait 3 years rather than 2 to get a $1 increase so 
that he might be able to stay above the poverty line?
  Recently, my State created 17,000 new jobs. Unemployment is lower now 
than it has been in 30 years. Yet we hear our colleagues say this 
somehow is going to hurt small business. This age-old argument has been 
so totally ripped apart by virtually every credible source. The Wall 
Street Journal, Business Week--hardly the mouthpiece of a liberal 
agenda--now say the 1996 predictions about job loss, the last time we 
increased the minimum wage, could not have been further from the truth. 
They were wrong. We have created more jobs in my State and in every 
State. Unemployment is lower, not higher. There is no question 
whatsoever, we can create more jobs and still provide dignity in the 
workplace.

  Of what value is a job if you need four of them to survive? Of what 
value can a job be if you can't even buy health insurance for your 
children?
  The other argument we hear so often is that minimum-wage workers are 
teenagers, or that they are part-time people, who pay for cars and CD 
players, who will be working in a high paying job someday. Again, the 
facts could not be more the opposite: Seventy percent of all minimum-
wage workers are in their twenties or older; 60 percent of minimum-wage 
workers today are women in that age category; 40 percent of minimum-
wage workers today are the sole breadwinners in their families.
  You hear these arguments over and over again: The minimum wage costs 
jobs. These jobs are for teenagers. That is just bunk. There is 
absolutely no truth to these assertions that we hear over and over 
again. We are talking about people who walk up to me in grocery stores 
telling me about their kids, telling me they have more than two jobs, 
telling me that unless they get this increase in the minimum wage, they 
don't know how they are going to survive. What an irony--talk of 
survival in a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity.
  I am hopeful that somehow over the course of the next couple of weeks 
we can reach an agreement. The House has acted on an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan basis. The Senate ought to go to conference. We ought to 
resolve this minimum wage issue. But we ought to accept the fact that 
we have no real argument to ask that person or anybody else to wait 3 
years for a $1 increase in the minimum wage when they need it so badly 
right now. I am very hopeful that we can work out a procedural 
arrangement whereby every single person this year can count on a 
minimum wage increase within 2 years.
  The average family now works an additional 265 hours a year just to 
maintain the same standard of living they had at the beginning of this 
decade. That is an additional 6 weeks a year that parents could be 
spending with their children that they are not. How much more in that 
direction should we be going? Three hundred hours more a year to 
maintain the status quo; 7 or 8 weeks a year that parents ought to be 
spending with their kids that they are now spending on a second or 
third job?
  The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I, and so many of 
our colleagues, have said if we do anything this year, if we really 
mean what we say about economic justice and about dignity in the 
workplace and keeping people off welfare and addressing the real needs 
of working families, there is nothing more important than ensuring an 
increase in the minimum wage, this year, over 2 years. It ought to be 
over 1 year, but if we can't do it in 1 year, the compromise was, well, 
then let us at least try it in 2. If we can't do it in 2 years, I don't 
know how we turn to those working those extra hours, those extra weeks, 
with any sense of compassion or understanding for their circumstances.
  I ask whether or not it could be a bipartisan goal that we sign and 
pass a measure before Mother's Day this year. What better opportunity 
to tell those women who make up 40 percent of the minimum wage 
workforce and who head households that we are going to give you some 
help. We are going to do all we can to keep you off welfare. We are 
going to try to put a little more dignity into the workplace, and we 
are going to provide the kind of economic justice we all say is 
important to us.
  I have admired Bob Dole for a lot of reasons, but one thing he once 
said, while he was the Republican leader, is something we ought to 
remember again and again. He said:

       I never thought the Republican Party would stand for 
     squeezing every nickel out of the minimum wage.

  That wasn't something Senator Kennedy or I said or anybody else on 
our side said. That was the Republican leader who said it wasn't the 
role of the Republican Party to squeeze every nickel out of the minimum 
wage.
  I hope the majority will not squeeze every last nickel from this 
minimum wage either. I hope they will join us. I hope they will 
remember the families below the poverty line. I hope they will remember 
where we are and from where we have come, when it comes to dignity, 
economic justice, and the minimum wage today. I hope they will join us 
in passing this 2-year bill before Mother's Day.
  Let's sign it into law. Let's send the right message.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with me that here we are on 
Thursday afternoon, early afternoon, 2:45, most Americans are out 
working. The Senate, as I understand the schedule, will not be voting 
until next week on Tuesday. It is Thursday afternoon. Does the Senator 
agree that we have an opportunity to debate this this afternoon, and, 
if there were additional questions, we could debate it on Friday where, 
again, most Americans are working? We could stay here, doing our 
business, and then vote sometime on Friday or Friday afternoon, that we 
could dispose of this issue in a timely way? Will the Senator not agree 
with me that someone who bears a responsibility--as well as the 
majority leader, in terms of a schedule--that this particular issue 
could be easily disposed of this afternoon, or on tomorrow, without 
interrupting the Senate schedule?

  Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is 
absolutely right. We have declared now an end of official business. We 
are in morning business this afternoon. We are not going to be in 
session tomorrow. We will be taking up the flag

[[Page S1657]]

amendment on Monday and voting on it on Tuesday. But we are told there 
is not time to bring this matter to the floor. Yet tomorrow is a 
perfectly opportune time for us to be debating and talking about this. 
We would love nothing more than to have a good debate. Let's talk about 
whether or not this affects jobs. Let's talk about whether or not this 
is for teenagers or for working mothers and working families. Let's 
entertain amendments.
  The fact is, we wouldn't have debated this last year were it not for 
the extraordinary efforts made by the Senator from Massachusetts who 
offered this amendment to a bankruptcy bill. That is what triggered the 
action in the Senate. I believe that is what triggered the action in 
the House. Now we are in a situation where we are prepared to split the 
bankruptcy conference from the minimum wage conference. But unless we 
have a vehicle with which to go to conference, it is very hard for us 
to conference a minimum wage that has never been considered in the 
Senate.
  How can we go to conference without a vehicle? That is unheard of. I 
think Daniel Webster would be rolling over in his grave trying to 
understand what the modern Senate has done to the process. The process, 
as I used to understand it is you pass a bill in the Senate, you pass 
it in the House, it goes to conference, you work out the differences, 
and you bring it back. We haven't passed a minimum wage bill in the 
House.
  The distinguished Senator is right. We are introducing this bill. We 
could bring it up today. We could have a vote on it tomorrow.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this is an 
issue on which I believe every Member of this body has voted at one 
time or another. It is not an extraordinary, complex issue, as issues 
go that we deal with. This is a rather basic issue and a rather 
fundamental issue. As the leader pointed out, it is basically a 
question of whether we are going to respect the dignity of those who 
want to work and can work, who are willing to work 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks of the year.
  Institutionally, we have voted, if my memory serves me correctly, 
over the history of this, probably 10 to 14 times. It is not a new 
issue. Members know what the dimensions of this particular question are 
really about.
  The Senator, as I understand it, would agree with me that it wouldn't 
take a very long period of time to permit the Senate to express its 
will on whether they believe there should be an increase in the minimum 
wage.
  As I understand the leader's position, he introduced this 
legislation. It is 50 cents this year; it is 50 cents next year. If we 
don't see this increase, we will see that the increase we provided in 
the 1996-1997 period will effectively be wiped out. It will be about 
the lowest period in the history of the country in terms of the 
purchasing power of the minimum wage at a time perhaps of greatest 
prosperity.

  Does the Senator find that is something that is difficult to explain 
to people back in his own State of South Dakota, as I do in 
Massachusetts, and who wonder why we aren't willing to take some 
action?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is so right. This is a $2,000 
increase. That $2,000 increase is probably made, in the case of many 
American entrepreneurs, in a matter of moments, minutes, or hours. We 
are talking about a $2,000 increase over the course of a couple of 
years. That is what we are talking about. These people are already 
struggling to retain some form of dignity in the workplace. They are 
determined not to go back on welfare. They are determined to try to 
find ways to ensure that their children have the quality of life we all 
dream about as Americans.
  As the Senator said, how ironic it is that at a time when we have 
more billionaires in this country than we have ever had in our Nation's 
history, at a time when income has gone up exponentially for the top 20 
percent of those in this country, at that very time we see potentially 
the lowest level of purchasing power the minimum wage has ever brought 
about in our Nation's history. What an incredible irony that is.
  The Senator is absolutely right. I appreciate his calling attention 
to that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
something perplexes me.
  Is the Senate in session tomorrow?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senate is not in session tomorrow.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Are there going to be votes on Monday?
  Mr. DASCHLE. There are not any votes on Monday. We will not have any 
votes now until Tuesday afternoon.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Has the Senate had many votes lately on Mondays or 
Fridays?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I do not recall the last time we had a vote on Monday or 
Friday.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Is there any reason the Senate cannot meet, do its 
business, and vote on matters of importance on Mondays and Fridays?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Montana raises a very good point. It 
used to be that we considered a workweek working 5 days. The workweek 
is becoming more and more 3 days. Not only that; our work periods are 
only 3 weeks. Then there is no workweek at all. It is a remarkable 
juxtaposition.
  First of all, we have a limited time each week. Then we have these 
periods for which there is no legislative work. Then we are told we 
don't have time to bring up the minimum wage. We don't have time to 
bring up issues that are of importance to families all across this 
country.
  The Senator is absolutely right.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe the Senator can answer another question.
  I think the Senator may have a good answer for this. But I don't. Why 
is it that the Senate spends so much time debating campaign 
contributions and campaign expenses at such astronomical and almost 
exponential rates so they can get elected but doesn't want to be here 
to do the Nation's work?
  Can the Senator explain that discrepancy?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I wish I could. All I know is that if you take what it 
costs to get elected to the Senate and divide it over the number of 
legislative days, it comes out to millions of dollars per day. It is a 
remarkable change in the circumstances we face since I have come to the 
Senate.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Isn't it true that people at home who elect us want us to 
do the Nation's work? Isn't that what the people at home expect us to 
do?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We are talking about minimum-wage workers working 40 
hours and sometimes 80 hours a week. If we are not in session long 
enough to address the concerns they have, it seems to me, we will have 
a lot of explaining to do to a lot of those people who are wondering: 
If they are working that long, why can't we work a 5-day week?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Didn't we just get a pay raise that went into effect this 
year?
  Mr. DASCHLE. It was a cost-of-living increase.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It went into effect this year.
  I compliment the Senator. I compliment both Senators for what they 
want to do. I want to join them. To me, it is a tragedy that the Senate 
is not doing the Nation's work, particularly on an issue such as the 
minimum wage. I commend the Senators.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator makes a good point. I defended the cost-of-
living adjustment. I think there are times when we have to recognize we 
want people in public service. But if we want to bring about the kind 
of cost-of-living increases that we understand we need at our salary 
level, I think everyone would also understand the need for a cost-of-
living adjustment for minimum-wage workers to at least stay equal to 
the poverty line, and to at least give them some encouragement not to 
go back on welfare.
  I appreciate very much the Senator from Montana pointing out that 
matter.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see others who wish to address the 
Senate.
  On this issue of the scope of what we are talking about and 
increasing the minimum wage 50 cents and 50 cents, as I understand it, 
all Americans combined earn about $4.2 trillion per year. The impact of 
a $1 wage increase over 2 years would be one-fifth of 1 percent of the 
national payroll. This is effectively what we are talking about.
  If the leader has given up the floor, I ask for recognition on my own 
right.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see others who desire to be recognized. 
But

[[Page S1658]]

I want to at this time join with our leader, Senator Daschle, in the 
introduction of this measure. He has pointed out that it is 50 cents 
this year and 50 cents next year. That is a very modest increase.
  We have been debating this issue for the last 2\1/2\ years. We have 
been denied the opportunity to bring this up to the Senate. We have 
been told by Republican leadership, day in and day out, that we haven't 
the time to debate this issue, that this is a complex issue that will 
impact inflation, that it will impact employment.
  These are very important macroeconomic issues. We need time to 
debate.
  Let the record show that our Democratic leader and others introduced 
this measure this afternoon. We are prepared this afternoon, on a 
Thursday in late March, to consider this legislation and deal with 
amendments, as we have done day in and day out over the period of the 
last 2 and a half years since we introduced minimum wage legislation. 
But we are prepared to deal with those arguments and finally take 
action.
  We are being denied the opportunity as elected officials of our 
respective States to be able to have a vote on the increase in the 
minimum wage because of process, because of procedures, and because of 
the rules of the Senate. That is so today. But it isn't always going to 
be that way. As the leader pointed out, we are strongly committed to 
getting a vote on this measure as soon as we possibly can. We would 
like to do it in an orderly way so Members can participate in the 
debate and offer amendments. We can reach a final resolution. But if we 
are denied that opportunity, we are going to find a way or means to 
insist that the Senate address this particular issue.
  I will just take a few moments to review exactly where we are in 
terms of the people about whom we are talking and those who would be 
the beneficiaries of this particular action.
  We have taken action at other times in our history in order to 
provide for and to say to those who are working at different levels of 
our economy 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year that they are not 
going to have to live in poverty. That is what this is all about.

  Are we going to say in the United States of America that men and 
women who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, who play by the 
rules, are not going to have to live in poverty in the year 2000 and 
2001, when we have this extraordinary prosperity? We say yes; the other 
side says no. That is a principal difference between our two parties on 
this issue. The American people ought to understand it.
  If Tom Daschle were the majority leader, we would be debating and 
acting on this issue this afternoon in the Senate. But we are not. We 
are denied it because of the Republican position. Our leader has 
pointed out, all Members, Republicans and Democrats, were quite 
willing, without delay, without any kind of prolonged debate, to take 
the cost-of-living index increase of $4,600 without delay, which is 
what our Republican friends want us to do, delay the increase of the $1 
minimum wage over 3 years. We didn't hear any of them say during the 
debate on the increase in the cost of living of $4,600: Spread that 
out.
  No, no, no, we took that quickly.
  We want for those working, who are needy and who are poor and who are 
struggling, we are saying we will spread out your increase of $1 over 3 
years. How does anyone dignify that position?
  We can see what has happened. The bottom fifth of families have 
fallen behind some 6 percent. This is from 1979 through 1999, over the 
last 20 years. Middle-income families are working harder. Generally, 
additional members of the family are going into the workforce. These 
middle-income families have seen a 5 percent increase in income. But 
most of them are working longer.
  The United States of America today has workers working over 50 hours 
more a year than any other industrial society in the world. They are 
working harder and barely hanging on. Look what has happened to the top 
5 percent of income families, those earning $246,000 versus the bottom 
20 percent earning $12,500. Of the bottom 20 percent, many are minimum 
wage earners, with incomes of $10,000 or less.
  Look what has been happening in the workforce during this period. 
People have always said the real issue in question for wage increase is 
productivity. There must be an increase in productivity for a wage 
increase. Look what has happened regarding productivity and the 
American worker. The real value of the minimum wage drops as 
productivity grows. We have had one of the greatest spurts in American 
productivity in the history of this Nation by American workers in 
recent years. At the same time, the real value of the minimum wage has 
collapsed. We have a dramatic increase in productivity, with more goods 
being produced by these workers, and they are still getting paid less 
and less.
  What is the possible justification for that? Every indicator we 
have--the size of employment, the impact on inflation, the issues of 
productivity--all come to the same conclusion, that this Nation at this 
time as never before can afford an increase in the minimum wage. That 
is what this is about.
  Finally, as the leader has pointed out, we have found now in order to 
get some action in the House of Representatives in the Senate of the 
United States, our Republican leader said we are going to ``piddle'' 
out an increase in the minimum wage over 3 years. We will take 3 years. 
However, we will provide $75 billion in unpaid for tax expenditures.
  I hope we don't hear from the other side about being responsible 
economically. Mr. President, that is $75 billion for 3 years.
  That wasn't good enough for the House of Representatives. Do you know 
what they said? We will give you 2 years, but we have $122 billion in 
unpaid-for tax cuts where 94 percent of the benefits go to the top 
fifth. Is that not interesting? We have to take care of the small 
little mom-and-pop stores; we have to help them out. We are interested 
in doing that. We would work with our Republican friends in terms of 
the mom-and-pop stores. Our Democratic leader indicated a willingness 
to do that. We did it in the last minimum wage increase. We are glad to 
take modest steps in order to be able to do that. We heard we are going 
to have some tax expenditures in order to protect the mom-and-pop 
stores. Except under this tax cut, mom-and-pop stores aren't helped; 94 
percent goes to the top fifth.

  Maybe that goes over in some areas of the country, but we want our 
friends on the other side to know this issue will not go away.
  When we have that kind of action that has been taken previously, a 
delayed minimum wage increase spread out over 3 years, added to a $75 
billion in unpaid-for tax expenditures, it makes me wonder. How many 
times have we come on the floor of the Senate saying: Let's do 
something about Head Start; let's do something about immunization, or 
on mental health. How much will it cost? Is it paid for? Is it paid 
for? Is it paid for? Well, you are not getting that, Senator.
  I don't know what happened to that particular position where we have 
now $75 billion and $122 billion in play, holding that minimum wage 
hostage to benefit the wealthiest individuals in this country.
  Can we justify that? Is it a position that is defensible? I don't 
believe so. It is wrong. Fundamentally, it is wrong.
  This issue is basically a women's issue because the majority of those 
who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue 
because many women who are receiving the minimum wage have children. 
This is about the quality of life. As the Council of Economic Advisers 
has pointed out, the children in minimum-wage families spend 22 hours a 
week less with their parents than they did 20 years ago.
  When we talk about the minimum wage, it is a family issue. It is a 
civil rights issue because many of the people who earn the minimum wage 
are people of color. And it is a fairness issue because it says in the 
United States we stand for men and women who work hard, play by the 
rules, and they ought not to live in poverty. We believe the 
overwhelming majority of Americans support it.
  I thank our leader for bringing this matter to the Senate again and 
for all of the leadership he has provided. I am proud to stand with 
some of my colleagues on this side who have stood for

[[Page S1659]]

that kind of increase and for the brave few on the other side who have 
joined. As the leader has pointed out, we will have this issue up one 
way or the other. It will come back again and again and again until we 
get fairness in our society for working men and women.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I hope people listened to the words of the 
Senator from Massachusetts. He couldn't be more right on; namely, it is 
the right thing to do. Purely and simply, it is the right thing to do. 
For that reason only I urge Members of the Senate and my colleagues to 
take requisite action to get to the issue, pass the minimum wage, and 
do the right thing, which is pass this very significant increase in 
minimum wage.

                          ____________________