[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S880-S888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 100, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       McConnell (for Gregg) amendment No. 101 (to amendment No. 
     100), to provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending 
     by establishing enhanced rescission authority under fast-
     track procedures.
       Enzi (for Snowe) amendment No. 103 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to enhance compliance assistance for small businesses.
       Sessions amendment No. 106 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     express the sense of the Senate that increasing personal 
     savings is a necessary step toward ensuring the economic 
     security of all the people of the United States upon 
     retirement.
       Sessions amendment No. 107 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     impose additional requirements to ensure greater use of the 
     advance payment of the earned income credit and to extend 
     such advance payment to all taxpayers eligible for the 
     credit.
       Sessions amendment No. 108 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to study the costs 
     and barriers to businesses if the advance earned income tax 
     credit program included all EITC recipients.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                     Amendment No. 103, as Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I can have the attention of the 
Senator from Maine, what I would like to do now is to ask that the 
amendment be modified with the modification that is at the desk, if 
that is agreeable with the Senator.
  Ms. SNOWE. It certainly is.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 103), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ENHANCED COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 212 of the Small Business 
     Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 
     note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Compliance Guide.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each rule or group of related rules 
     for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory 
     flexibility analysis under section 605(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, the agency shall publish 1 or more guides to 
     assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall 
     entitle such publications `small entity compliance guides'.
       ``(2) Publication of guides.--The publication of each guide 
     under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) the posting of the guide in an easily identified 
     location on the website of the agency; and
       ``(B) distribution of the guide to known industry contacts, 
     such as small entities, associations, or industry leaders 
     affected by the rule.
       ``(3) Publication date.--An agency shall publish each guide 
     (including the posting and distribution of the guide as 
     described under paragraph (2))--
       ``(A) on the same date as the date of publication of the 
     final rule (or as soon as possible after that date); and
       ``(B) not later than the date on which the requirements of 
     that rule become effective.
       ``(4) Compliance actions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each guide shall explain the actions a 
     small entity is required to take to comply with a rule.
       ``(B) Explanation.--The explanation under subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) shall include a description of actions needed to meet 
     the requirements of a rule, to

[[Page S881]]

     enable a small entity to know when such requirements are met; 
     and
       ``(ii) if determined appropriate by the agency, may include 
     a description of possible procedures, such as conducting 
     tests, that may assist a small entity in meeting such 
     requirements, except that, compliance with any procedures 
     described pursuant to this section does not establish 
     compliance with the rule, or establish a presumption or 
     inference of such compliance.
       ``(C) Procedures.--Procedures described under subparagraph 
     (B)(ii)--
       ``(i) shall be suggestions to assist small entities; and
       ``(ii) shall not be additional requirements, or diminish 
     requirements, relating to the rule.
       ``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in 
     its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter 
     of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure 
     that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language 
     likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies 
     may prepare separate guides covering groups or classes of 
     similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with 
     associations of small entities to develop and distribute such 
     guides. An agency may prepare guides and apply this section 
     with respect to a rule or a group of related rules.
       ``(6) Reporting.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, and annually 
     thereafter, the head of each agency shall submit a report to 
     the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate, the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives, and any other committee of relevant 
     jurisdiction describing the status of the agency's compliance 
     with paragraphs (1) through (5).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 211(3) of 
     the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
     1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended by inserting ``and 
     entitled'' after ``designated''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a moment or two to thank the 
Senator from Maine and thank the Senator from Wyoming. If one will take 
a few moments and look through this amendment and the modification, 
they will understand what the good Senators have been talking about. It 
talks about posting to make sure the information is going to be 
available to small businesses. It talks about distribution, to make 
sure there is going to be a generous distribution. It talks about a 
timely distribution, so we are not going to have a final date, and then 
the Agency is going to delay in terms of posting and distribution.
  It explains what is necessary for small businesses to be able to 
comply with the rules and the regulations. It doesn't affect those 
regulations that have been set and established. And it makes the 
requirement that it be put in plain English language so that any person 
is able to understand what is intended and what the rule is covering, 
and then it has the provision to inform Congress, the appropriate 
committees, as to what they have done over previous years.
  This makes a lot of good sense. I commend the Senator from Maine and 
the Senator from Wyoming, and my colleague, Senator Kerry, who has been 
involved in this effort, and Senator Landrieu as well. I am very 
grateful to all of them for working with us. This is a very useful and 
extremely important and valuable addition to the legislation.
  I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is desirous to address the 
overall issue. Mr. President, as I understand it, under the previous 
order, at noontime, we are going to vote on this amendment; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no order to that effect.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, shortly, there will be, I expect. At 
the appropriate time, we will ask for the yeas and nays. We intend to 
have the vote, for the information of offices, at that time.
  I see both the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania are here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 112

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 112 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 112.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prevent the closure and defunding of certain women's 
                           business centers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RENEWAL GRANTS FOR WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.

       Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Continued Funding for Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--A nonprofit organization described in 
     paragraph (2) shall be eligible to receive, subject to 
     paragraph (3), a 3-year grant under this subsection.
       ``(2) Applicability.--A nonprofit organization described in 
     this paragraph is a nonprofit organization that--
       ``(A) has received funding under subsections (b) and (l); 
     and
       ``(B) is not eligible under the programs under such 
     subsections for the first fiscal year after the end of the 
     period of financial assistance under subsection (l).
       ``(3) Application and approval criteria.--
       ``(A) Criteria.--The Administrator shall develop and 
     publish criteria for the consideration and approval of 
     applications by nonprofit organizations under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the deadline to submit applications for each fiscal year, 
     the Administrator shall approve or deny any application under 
     this subsection and notify the applicant for each such 
     application.
       ``(4) Award of grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Administrator shall make a grant for the 
     Federal share of the cost of activities described in the 
     application to each applicant approved under this subsection.
       ``(B) Amount.--A grant under this subsection shall be for 
     not less than $90,000 and not more than $150,000, for each 
     year of that grant.
       ``(C) Federal share.--The Federal share under this 
     subsection shall be not more than 50 percent.
       ``(D) Priority.--In allocating funds made available for 
     grants under this section, the Administrator shall give 
     applications under this subsection priority over first-time 
     applications under subsection (b).
       ``(5) Renewal.--The Administrator may renew a grant under 
     this subsection for additional 3-year periods, if the 
     nonprofit organization submits an application for such 
     renewal at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Administrator may establish.''.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this is an important debate and important 
discussion, especially in regard to the points made by Senator Snowe of 
Maine; that is, if we raise the minimum wage, we need to understand 
both the potential impact on small businesses and recognize those small 
businesses are creating most of the job opportunities in our country. 
They fuel our economy. Over the long term, as those smaller 
entrepreneurial firms grow, they provide support for a growing wage 
base, for benefits, and for support of the families who depend on those 
small businesses for their jobs.
  I welcome her amendment that deals with small business regulation. It 
is an important step in the right direction, and I certainly hope it 
continues to receive bipartisan support in the Senate. I think many of 
the provisions that are in the substitute that deal with support for 
small business will receive bipartisan support.
  Senator Snowe also mentioned the importance of tax treatment for 
small business investments and capital spending, and that they be 
allowed to expense that, in turn, allowing them to find additional 
resources to continue that pattern of investment.
  The amendment I have called up also deals with the issue of small 
business, entrepreneurship and job creation and a small, but important, 
program in our Government called the Women's Business Centers. There 
are about 100 Women's Business Centers across the country. There is one 
in Portsmouth, NH, that was among the very first created in the United 
States, and it deals with a range of issues from providing an incubator 
for women entrepreneurs just starting out a firm, to providing training 
and counseling, support for marketing services, information about 
Government procurement, so many of the issues that have already been 
addressed on the floor.
  What this amendment does is to simply ensure that those high-
performing Women's Business Centers that have continued to serve a 
strong, important

[[Page S882]]

clientele and have supported entrepreneurship and investment in their 
community continue to be eligible for funding.
  Under the current restrictions, some of those centers, after 5 years 
of sustainability grants, lose the opportunity for additional funding. 
My amendment would create a new program within the WBC program that 
allows those centers to apply for a 3-year continuation of Federal 
funding, provided they continue to meet high standards, serve their 
clients effectively, and attract sources of funding from the community.
  I think it is a reasonable approach, one that makes sense. Look at 
the great example that has been set in Portsmouth. With the limited 
amount of Federal funding and other community resources, in the past 
year, it has served over 1,300 individual entrepreneurs. That, as we 
like to say in Washington, is real leverage, real performance.
  This does not require additional funding. It is a straightforward way 
to ensure that an important need continues to be met and that this bill 
has the appropriate balance and support for the small business 
community.
  I commend the work of the Senator from Maine, for her work on small 
business generally within the Small Business Committee. This is 
something they have tried to address before and the Senate has 
supported in the past. I hope it is something that will continue to 
receive bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with regard to the amendment of the 
Senator from New Hampshire, it seems by both the explanation and a 
first look, this is something that will be very useful and valuable. If 
the Senator will work with us--I am not prepared, at this time, to 
recommend the amendment, but we will work on it with him and indicate 
what our position is in the very near future. But it certainly seems, 
trying to give some focus and attention to small businesses that are 
initiated by women, to make a good deal of sense, and it is subject to 
an authorization, so there is no point of order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments. 
Obviously, I just called up the amendment. I don't expect him to 
endorse it wholeheartedly. I think he will find he has supported it in 
the past and many in the Chamber have supported it in the past and it 
is worthy of our consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.


                 Amendment No. 115 to Amendment No. 100

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I seek recognition for the purpose of laying 
down an amendment and not speaking to it. I ask unanimous consent that 
the pending amendment be laid aside for that purpose.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment that deals 
with extending some current provisions and adding additional provisions 
to assist small businesses to pay for a minimum wage increase, should 
one be adopted. I will speak to this later. I appreciate others 
allowing me to lay it down.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 115 to amendment No. 100.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To extend through December 31, 2008, the depreciation 
   treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements)

       On page 4, line 21, strike ``April 1, 2008'' and insert 
     ``January 1, 2009''.
       On page 6, lines 5 and 6, strike ``April 1, 2008'' and 
     insert ``January 1, 2009''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 2 which, as 
we know, will increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an 
hour. I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and the bipartisan work 
that went into developing this issue.
  I speak today of an issue which I believe is one of economic justice. 
Those earning the minimum wage have not had an increase in 10 years. We 
should ask ourselves today not only about the information in the bill 
and the data, as important as that is, we should ask ourselves who are 
these Americans who have not had an increase in 10 long years?
  Most, of course, we know are adults working full time. In fact, in my 
home State of Pennsylvania, 71 percent of the workers whose wages would 
be raised directly by an increase in the minimum wage are adults ages 
20 and older.
  Also, these Americans in many cases are women. Sixty percent of those 
who would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage are women, 
working every day to make ends meet, to support their children. In 
fact, if the minimum wage is raised, 6 million children will benefit.
  Recently, the Children's Defense Fund reported that a single parent 
working full time at the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour earns 
enough to cover only 40 percent--just 40 percent--of the cost of 
raising children.
  Those who earn the minimum wage are not people who are connected to 
the wealthy and the powerful. They don't have high-paid lobbyists in 
Washington advocating for them. No, these people are Americans who lead 
quiet, triumphant lives of struggle and sacrifice, overcoming hardships 
and setbacks every day. They do hard work, very hard work, such as the 
waitresses we see every day carrying heavy trays, on their feet hour 
after hour, as they dream of a better life for themselves and for their 
children. And at the end of a long day, these Americans return to work 
and go home at the end of a long day often exhausted, often working not 
one job but two jobs or three, and the dignity of their labor gives 
meaning to their lives. We know, and they would tell us that if they 
were standing here today next to me. So that work they do gives meaning 
to their lives without a doubt.
  But no one, no matter how hard they work, can keep pace with the 
avalanche of cost increases we have seen over the last 10 years. Let me 
take my colleagues through a couple of those cost increases.
  Since 1997, congressional pay has increased 24 percent, about 
$31,000. This has occurred while the value of the minimum wage has been 
eroded by 20 percent.

  Let me say that again: Congressional pay up 24 percent, the value of 
the minimum wage down 20 percent. We cannot say that enough. The cost 
of living is up 26 percent, the cost of food up 23 percent, the cost of 
housing up 29 percent, the cost of gasoline up over 130 percent, the 
cost of health care up 43 percent. Families who are listening to this 
today know this. The average premium for a family of four costs over 
$10,000, almost $11,000, which is more than a minimum wage worker earns 
in a year.
  The cost of raising a child since 1997 has increased 52 percent; the 
cost of educating those children has risen 61 percent; the cost of 
heating a home has increased by 120 percent.
  What we are talking about here is an issue, indeed, of economic 
justice. Raising the Federal minimum wage will give our workers more 
than $4,000 per year. Let's consider what that could buy for a family 
in America. You can buy almost 2 years of childcare with over $4,000, 
full tuition at a community college, 2 years of health care, 1 year of 
groceries, 1\1/2\ years of heat and electricity, and 8 months of rent. 
That is how we affect, in a positive way, people's lives, the lives of 
hard-working men and women in America today.
  Those who argue against an increase in the minimum wage will say that 
an increase will hurt small business and/or the economy. I do not agree 
with that because if you look at the data, when the minimum wage was 
increased in 1997, what happened in the aftermath? Millions and 
millions of jobs were created and raising the minimum wage did not slow 
that down one iota.
  Recently, over 650 economists issued a statement calling for an 
increase in

[[Page S883]]

the minimum wage. We do not have time today to go through that, but it 
is an important statement from leading economists in America. With an 
increase in minimum wage, employers will get a lot in return: higher 
productivity they will get with an increase in the minimum wage; lower 
turnover; and, of course, increased worker morale.
  Mr. President, you know as well as I do that more than 28 States now 
have increased the minimum wage, including my home State of 
Pennsylvania. In July of this year it will increase to $7.15 an hour, 
as a result of State legislation. That should not have had to take 
place. The Federal Government long ago--we are years overdue on this--
should have taken the responsibility for increasing the minimum wage, 
but that did not happen here in Washington. There were other 
priorities, other interests, more powerful interests that took 
precedence.
  More than 400,000 Pennsylvanians will be affected positively by an 
increase in the minimum wage. I am thinking of them today as I am of 
families across America who will be affected positively by an increase 
in the minimum wage. Yes, I do believe that small businesses across 
Pennsylvania and America do need help. However, in my judgment, based 
upon the people to whom I have spoken in my State, the No. 1 priority 
or the No. 1 burden faced by small business owners, men or women, is 
the cost, the crushing cost of health care. We need to deliver health 
care relief to those small businesses, and that as well is long 
overdue, because those small business owners and their workers deserve 
the same kind of economic justice I talked about today.
  I fervently urge support for this legislation, and I appreciate this 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
speaking in favor of this minimum wage amendment. This was an issue, I 
know, out in the State of Pennsylvania during the course of the 
campaign. Senator Casey was resolute in his commitment to the working 
families in his State and I am very grateful for his comments and 
strong support for this issue.
  As I understand it, we expect Senator Grassley is going to speak to 
the Senate, and my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, is 
going to address the Senate. We are working out the consent agreement 
for the time for the vote. It had initially been set tentatively for 
noontime. Now, I want to tell our colleagues, it is going to be after 
the caucuses. We are working out the final time and we will make that 
announcement in a very few moments. But for the information of our 
colleagues, and their schedules, we will not be voting prior to the 
caucuses. We will be voting after the caucuses and we will be more 
precise in a very short period of time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address two aspects of this 
legislation because they are necessarily connected. One is, obviously, 
the increase in the minimum wage. The other one is the small business 
tax provisions that have come out of the committee Senator Baucus 
chairs and on which I am the ranking member, the Finance Committee. I 
want to deal with the minimum wage part of this issue first.
  Popular support for raising the minimum wage is based on a number of 
widely held beliefs: First, that no one can support a family at $5.15 
an hour; second, minimum wage earners will not get a pay raise unless 
Congress gives them one; and third, raising the minimum wage helps 
millions of poor workers and hurts no one.
  Unfortunately, these popular beliefs are in some cases misleading and 
in some cases outright wrong. First, minimum wage earners are not 
trying to support a family--or you might argue a small percentage of 
them are trying to support a family, but I want to say why most are 
not. Those who are, of course, can get additional benefits through 
Government programs to supplement family income; thus, no one has to 
rely solely on the minimum wage to support a family.
  Second, minimum wage jobs are generally entry level jobs. Most 
workers who start at the minimum wage quickly earn more. Few workers 
remain stuck at the minimum wage for very long and, unfortunately, 
those who do are most at risk of losing their jobs from a minimum wage 
increase.
  Third, the benefits of a minimum wage increase do not go exclusively 
to poor families. Only 15 percent of the proposed minimum wage increase 
would go to those living below the poverty level, as an example. 
Increasing the minimum wage would result in higher prices for consumers 
of minimum wage products, higher unemployment among the least skilled 
minimum wage workers--and that particularly affects minority groups 
within our country--increased poverty among minimum wage families, and 
in some cases it could be a combination of these three things I 
mentioned.
  Much of the popular support for the minimum wage is based on a 
fallacy, that the Government can help the poor without hurting anyone 
else. But if the Government can increase wages with no ill effects, 
then why stop at $7.25, as is currently proposed? Why not make it 
$10.25? Why not make it $20.25, or even more? The fact is, this does 
have limited impact and it does have some negative consequences, so 
that is why these occasional increases are justified.
  Popular support for increasing the minimum wage is tempered by the 
fact that virtually everyone agrees that there is some level at which 
the minimum wage would produce obvious negative effects. In the past, 
policymakers have attempted to mitigate any negative effects by 
limiting the size of the minimum wage increase, providing tax credits 
to employers who hire at-risk workers, and providing tax or regulatory 
relief to business generally, particularly small businesses.
  However, additional research in recent years has cast some doubt on 
the effectiveness of these previous efforts. First, research suggests 
raising the minimum wage does not reduce poverty among minimum wage 
earners. Instead, it most likely increases poverty.
  Second, legislative action by various States to adopt their own 
higher minimum wage has led to significant differences within our 50 
States.
  Third, research shows that the earned income tax credit could provide 
a cost-effective way to help poorest workers and be more effective than 
even increasing the minimum wage.
  I am pleased that over the last few years we have enhanced the earned 
income credit for many families by making the child tax credit 
refundable. That is through the work of the Senate Finance Committee.
  Before I go on to my next point I would say parenthetically there are 
studies that have been updated quite frequently over the last 20 or 25 
years, where economists have followed people in quintiles: the lowest, 
the second, you know, for five quintiles from the lowest income up to 
the highest income. Following people over a period of years, they have 
been able to study the mobility of the American worker. In other words, 
once you are in the workforce, most people work themselves up the 
economic ladder--some way up, some part way up. But we find that only 
about 2 percent of our population seems to be stuck in the lowest 
quintile of income for long periods of time--a very small percentage. 
But other people go from the second quintile--from the first to the 
second to the third, and we also find that there is a larger percentage 
of our population that moves up from the lower two quintiles into the 
third or the fourth quintiles--a lot more rapidly and with a lot more 
mobility than we find people moving from the fourth to the top. While 
there are some people moving down from the highest to a lower quintile, 
history proves the mobility of the workforce in America is very much 
upward.
  Despite some serious policy concerns, public support for increasing 
the minimum wage remains strong. That is why the Senate is taking up a 
minimum wage increase. The political reality is a majority of Senators 
support a minimum wage increase.
  So a lot of economists would make an argument that you should not 
have any increase in the minimum wage at all and that the mistakes, 
going back to the 1930s, were mistakes; that you should not interfere 
with the marketplace. But Congress has decided for 70 years to do that. 
We are in the process for doing it. Regardless of the economic 
arguments, as long as this is a

[[Page S884]]

political issue, without a doubt, from time to time it is going to be 
raised and I suppose you could make an argument that, as long as it is 
political it ought to be raised, or else you should not even have a 
minimum wage.
  Now I would go to the tax incentive portions we hope stay in this 
bill when it goes to the other body. Tax incentives targeted to small 
business and other businesses impacted by a minimum wage increase have 
been linked to the minimum wage legislation. We have done this in the 
past decade. Democrats have at times joined Republicans supporting this 
language.
  I would quote from two former chairmen on this committee in their 
opening remarks on the conference agreement on the last piece of 
legislation that went through this body to raise the minimum wage. 
Senator Roth, then the chairman of the committee, described taxes as 
the sand that grinds the gears of small business. So he saw merit in 
small business tax relief as a separate matter. Senator Roth went on to 
say:

       [We will] proceed to the legislation on the minimum wage 
     and small business taxes. We're anxious to move ahead on the 
     small business tax legislation.
  Senator Moynihan, who at times was chairman of the committee and at 
times the ranking Democrat, said, at the same time Senator Roth was 
speaking:

       My distinguished chairman, as always, has so stated the 
     facts. But there is a small semantic issue here. Some call 
     this a small business relief act; others on this side call it 
     the minimum wage bill. But we will not resolve that tonight, 
     nor need we.

  Now, the next time the Senate deals with this, about 8 or 9 years 
since we last dealt with it, it is still the same issue. Senators Roth 
and Moynihan were right then, and if they were still living today, I 
would tell them they are right now.
  To different groups of Senators, these topics carry their own 
benefits or burdens. Many on my side don't like the idea of second-
guessing the labor market with a federally mandated minimum wage. I 
pointed out some of the related issues that should give us pause, 
arguments put forth by economists when considering this legislation, 
that it is not all positive.
  Many on the Democratic side want a straight minimum wage hike and 
refuse to consider the burden that policy puts on employers and 
workers. Those Members do not want any linkage between the minimum wage 
policy and small business tax relief. As Senator Moynihan said, 
however, we don't have to agree now whether the upcoming legislation 
will be a minimum wage or a small business tax relief bill.
  Some, mostly Democrats, will call it a minimum wage bill. Some, 
mostly Republicans, will call it a small business tax relief bill. 
Still others will call it both a minimum wage and small business tax 
relief bill. President Bush, like President Clinton, the last President 
who signed an increase in the minimum wage bill years ago, will 
recognize both parts of the package. If my friends on the other side 
review the statement made by President Clinton, they will see that he 
saw merit in small business tax relief.
  Our Committee on Finance chairman, Senator Baucus, recognizes the 
linkage. I told him Republicans will insist on a small business tax 
relief package. He, in his cooperative way, as I hope I have been 
cooperative with him in the past, has heard us. Some in his caucus, 
their labor union friends and sympathetic ears of the east coast media, 
attacked Senator Baucus--which I don't understand--for recognizing a 
basic reality, as Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth worked together a 
decade ago to do, to see that there is some negative impact on small 
business from an increase in the minimum wage so you ought to offset 
that with some benefit to small business through the tax portions of 
the legislation.
  Those folks who are criticizing Senator Baucus don't have the 
responsibility to find the middle ground and evidently think we can get 
a bill through the Senate that can get the votes without finding the 
middle ground. It can't be done.
  Now, if I were chairman--and I am not chairman, and I am not crying 
about that--I would have tilted this package a little bit more toward 
the depreciation incentive and less toward the work opportunity tax 
credits. The reality is, Republicans don't have a majority on the 
Committee on Finance or in the full Senate, so chairman Baucus has 
struck a balance between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
  I will assist Senator Baucus in defending the tax relief package that 
goes for the offsets and the revenue-losing provisions. We should not 
disturb the core structure of this package. I am hopeful, however, that 
we will improve the package by enhancing the package on the 
depreciation side, as Senator Kyl has suggested. It is important these 
incentives coincide with the time when the minimum wage increase will 
take effect. In seeking this objective we will need to find appropriate 
offsets, obviously. There may be other improvements.
  The bottom line is the Committee on Finance package is a well-known 
set of small business tax relief measures, things we have done before--
extending, mostly. These proposals have merit by themselves, but a 
minimum wage increase is not likely to pass the Senate without them. I 
hope everyone understands that.
  As many know, I am a working family farmer. For farmers, fields look 
familiar because we work our fields every year. This linkage, then, to 
put a commonsense touch on it, is that the linkage between minimum wage 
and small business relief is a familiar feel. I can quote Roth and 
Moynihan ad infinitum to prove it. It is not something new that is 
coming up with Baucus and Grassley. We have plowed this ground before. 
This is well-known common ground.
  I referred to President Clinton in a signing ceremony about 10 years 
ago. That legislation was founded on a small business tax relief 
package twice this size. I emphasize it was twice the size of what 
people are complaining about now that we are presenting to the Senate. 
It was supported at that time by many seeking cloture on the bill that 
is before the Senate.
  President Clinton singled out the work opportunity tax credit and the 
depreciation proposals in his remarks. My friend, Senator Kennedy, 
attended the signing ceremony and was recognized by President Clinton 
for the great product they brought to President Clinton. And John 
Sweeney was recognized, the head of the AFL-CIO.
  I ask unanimous consent the remarks be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  The White House,


                                Office of the Press Secretary,

                                                  August 20, 1996.

     Remarks by the President at signing of the Small Business Job 
                         Protection Act of 1996

       The President: Thank you very much. Cathy, it may be your 
     birthday, but I would say that everybody feels that you have 
     given us a great gift today by reminding us about what this 
     is all about. And we wish you and your fine children well. 
     And I don't think being in the band will hurt them a bit. I'm 
     glad you're going to do that. (Laughter.)
       I want to thank the members of our administration who are 
     here--Secretary Reich, Small Business Administrator Phil 
     Lader and others. I want to thank all the members of Congress 
     who are here, especially Senator Kennedy who, himself, 
     probably broke the wage in hour laws by working so hard to 
     pass this bill. If we'd been paying him by the hour we'd be 
     underpaying him in the last year. Thank you very much. 
     (Applause.)
       There are a lot of people who worked hard on this bill who 
     aren't here--Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt, 
     Congressman Bonior, Congressman Clay, in particular did. I 
     want to join with others and thank the countless labor unions 
     who have championed this bill, led by the truly tireless John 
     Sweeney. (Applause.)
       I'd like to remind the American people of something, 
     because sometimes our unions are criticized for looking out 
     for their members too much. There are very few unions in 
     America that have minimum wage workers. Most of these unions 
     did this because they thought it was the right thing to do. 
     They spent their time and their money and their energy trying 
     to help other people who do not belong to their organization, 
     and I thank you for that. (Applause.)
       I'd like to thank the religious groups, the economists, the 
     business people who have made this their cause of concern. 
     Again, I thank the members, including members of both 
     parties, who supported this legislation.
       I'll say more in a moment about the rest of the bill, but 
     let me just begin by saying this is a truly remarkable piece 
     of legislation. It is pro-work, pro-business and pro-family; 
     it raises the minimum wage; it helps small businesses in a 
     number of ways that I will

[[Page S885]]

     explain in a moment, including retirement and incentive to 
     invest; and it promotes adoption in two very sweeping ways 
     that have long needed to be done in the United States. This 
     is a cause for celebration for all Americans of all parties, 
     all walks of life, all faiths. This bill represents the very 
     best in our country.
       It will give 10 million Americans, as Cathy said, a chance 
     to raise stronger families and build better futures. By 
     coming together across lines that have too often divided us 
     and finding common ground, we have made this a real season of 
     achievement for the people of America.
       At its heart, this bill does reaffirm our most profoundly 
     American values--offering opportunity to all, demanding 
     responsibility from all, and coming together as a community 
     to do the right thing. This bill says to the working people 
     of America: If you're willing to take responsibility and go 
     to work, your work will be honored. We're going to honor your 
     commitment to your family, we're going to recognize that 
     $4.25 an hour is not enough to raise a family.
       It's harder and harder to raise children today and harder 
     and harder for people to succeed at home and at work. And I 
     have said repeatedly, over and over again to the American 
     people: We must not force our families to make a choice. Most 
     parents have to work. We have a national interest in seeing 
     that our people can succeed at home where it counts the most 
     in raising their children, and succeed at work so they'll 
     have enough income to be able to succeed at home. We must do 
     both, and this bill helps us achieve that goal. (Applause.)
       These 10 million Americans will become part of America's 
     economic success story. A success story that in the last four 
     years has led us to 900,000 new construction jobs; a record 
     number of new businesses started, including those owned by 
     women and minorities; a deficit that is the smallest it's 
     been since 1981, and 60 percent less than it was when I took 
     office; 10 million new jobs; 12 million American families who 
     have been able to take advantage of Family and Medical Leave; 
     almost 4.5 million new homeowners and 10 million other 
     Americans who refinanced their homes at lower mortgage rates. 
     And, most importantly of all, perhaps, real hourly wages, 
     which fell for a decade, have finally begun to rise again. 
     America is on the move. (Applause.)
       But our challenge, my fellow Americans, is to make sure 
     that every American can reap the rewards of a growing 
     economy, every American has the tools to make the most of his 
     or her own life, to build those strong families and to 
     succeed at home and at work. As the Vice President said, the 
     first step was taken in 1993 with the passage of the Family 
     and Medical Leave Law and with the Earned Income Tax Credit, 
     which cut taxes for 15 million working families. Today, that 
     earned income tax credit is worth about $1,000 to a family of 
     four with an income under $28,000 a year.
       Well, today, we complete the second half of that effort. 
     Together with our tax cut for working families, this bill 
     ensures that a parent working full-time at the minimum wage 
     can lift himself or herself and their children out of 
     poverty. Nobody who works full-time with kids in the home 
     should be in poverty. If we want to really revolutionize 
     America's welfare system and move people from welfare to work 
     and reward work, that is the first, ultimate test we all have 
     to meet. If you get up every day and you go to work, and you 
     put in your time and you have kids in your home, you and your 
     children will not be in poverty. (Applause.)
       We have some hard working minimum wage people here today 
     supporting Cathy. Let me tell you about them. Seventy percent 
     of them are adults, six of 10 are working women, and for 
     them, work is about more than a paycheck, it's about pride. 
     They want a wage they can raise their families on. By raising 
     the minimum wage by 90 cents, this bill, over two years, will 
     give those families an additional $1,800 a year in income--
     enough to buy seven months of groceries, several months of 
     rent, or child care. Or, as Cathy said, to pay all of the 
     bills from the utilities in the same month.
       For many, this bill will make the difference between their 
     ability to keep their families together and their failure to 
     do so. These people reflect America's values, and it's a lot 
     harder for them than it is for most of us to go around living 
     what they say they believe in. It's about time they got a 
     reward and, today, they'll get it. (Applause.)
       I would also like to say a very special word of thanks to 
     the business owners, especially the small business owners who 
     supported this bill. Many of the minimum wage employers I 
     talk to wanted to pay their employees more than $4.25 an hour 
     and would be happy to do so as long as they can do it without 
     hurting their businesses, and that means their competitors 
     have to do the same thing. This bill will allow them to 
     complete and win, to have happier, more productive employees, 
     and to know they're doing the right thing. For all of those 
     small businesses, I am very, very appreciative. (Applause.)
       I would also like to say that this bill does a remarkable 
     number of things for small businesses. In each of the last 
     three years, our nation has set a new record in each 
     succeeding year in the number of new businesses stated. And 
     we know that most of the new jobs in America are being 
     created by small- and medium-sized businesses. In 1993, I 
     proposed a $15,000 increase in the amount of capital a small 
     business can expense, to spark the kind of investment that 
     they need to create jobs. Well, in 1993 we only won half that 
     increase, but today I'll get to sign the second half into 
     law, and I thank the Congress for passing that, as well. 
     (Applause.)
       As the Vice President said, this bill also includes a Work 
     Opportunity Tax Credit to provide jobs for the most 
     economically disadvantaged working Americans, including 
     people who want to move from welfare to work. Now, there will 
     be a tightly drawn economic incentive for people to hire 
     those folks and give them a chance to enter the workforce, as 
     well. It extends the research tax credit to help businesses 
     stay competitive in the global economy. It extends a tax 
     incentive for businesses to train and educate their 
     employees. That's good news for people who need those skills, 
     and it's good news for America because we have to have the 
     best educated workforce in the world in the 21st century.
       This legislation does even more to strengthen small 
     business by strengthening the families that make them up. It 
     helps millions of more Americans to save for their own 
     retirement. It makes it much easier for small businesses to 
     offer pension plans by creating a new small business 401(k) 
     plan. It also lets more Americans keep their pensions when 
     they change jobs without having to wait a year before they 
     can start saving at their new jobs. As many as 10 million 
     Americans without pensions today could now earn them as a 
     result of this bill.
       I'm delighted we are joined today, among others, by Shawn 
     Marcell, the CEO of Prima Facie, a fast-growing video 
     monitoring company in Pennsylvania, which now has just 17 
     employees--but that's a lot more than he started with. He 
     stood with me in April and promised that if we kept our word 
     and made pensions easier and cheaper for small businesses 
     like his, he'd give pensions to all of his employees. Today, 
     he has told us he's making good on that pledge. I'd like him 
     to stand up, and say I predict that thousands more will 
     follow Shawn's lead. Thank you, Shawn. Please stand up. Let's 
     give him a hand. God bless you, sir. Thank you. (Applause.)
       I'd also like to say a special word of thanks to our SBA 
     Administrator, Phil Lader, and to the White House Conference 
     on Small Business. When the White House Conference on Small 
     Business met, they said one of their top priorities was 
     increasing the availability and the security of pensions for 
     small business owners in America. This is a good thing. It is 
     also pro-work, pro-family and pro-business.
       Finally, this bill does something else that is especially 
     important to me and to Hillary--and I'm glad she's here with 
     us today. It breaks down the financial and bureaucratic 
     barriers to adoption, giving more children what every child 
     needs and deserves--loving parents and a strong, stable home. 
     (Applause.)
       Two weeks ago, we had a celebration for the American 
     athletes who made us so proud in Atlanta at the Centennial 
     Olympics. Millions of Americans now know that one of them--
     the Decathlon Gold medalist, Dan O'Brien--speaks movingly 
     about having been an adopted child and how much the support 
     of his family meant in his life. Right now, there are tens of 
     thousands of children waiting for the kind of family that 
     helped to make Dan O'Brien an Olympic champion. At the same 
     time, there are thousands of middle class families that want 
     to bring children into their homes but cannot afford it. 
     We're offering a $5,000 tax credit to help bring them 
     together. It gives even more help to families that will adopt 
     children with disabilities or take in two siblings, rather 
     than seeing them split up.
       And, lastly, this bill ends the long-standing bias against 
     interracial adoption which has too often meant an endless, 
     needless wait for America's children. (Applause.)
       You know, as much as we talk about strong, loving families, 
     it's not every day that we here in Washington get to enact a 
     law that literally creates them or helps them stay together. 
     This is such a day. Although he can't be with us today, I 
     also want to thank Dave Thomas, himself adopted, who went on 
     to found Wendy's and do so much for our country. Perhaps more 
     than any other American citizen, he has made these adoption 
     provisions possible, and we thank him.
       Lastly, I'd like to point out that we do have some 
     significant number of adoptive families here with us today, 
     including some who are on the stage. And so I'd just like to 
     acknowledge the Weeks (ph.) family, the Wolfington (ph.) 
     family, the Outlaw (ph.) family, the Fitzwater (ph.) family, 
     and ask them and anyone else here from the adoptive family 
     community to stand up who'd like to stand. We'd like to 
     recognize you and thank you for being here. Thank you all for 
     being here. Thank you. (Applause.)
       Beside me, or in front of me now, is the desk used by 
     Frances Perkins--Franklin Roosevelt's labor secretary and the 
     very first woman ever to serve in the Cabinet. She was one of 
     our greatest labor secretaries. It was from her desk that 
     many of America's pioneering wage, hour and workplace laws 
     originated--including the very first 25 cent an hour minimum 
     wage signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1938.
       Secretary Perkins understood that a living wage was about 
     more than feeding a family or shelter from a storm. A living 
     wage makes it possible to participate in what she called the 
     culture of community--to take part in the family, the 
     community, the religious life we all cherish. Confident in 
     our ability to

[[Page S886]]

     provide for ourselves and for our children, secure in the 
     knowledge that hard work does pay. A minimum wage increase, 
     portable health care, pension security, welfare to work 
     opportunities--that's a plan that's putting America on the 
     right track.
       Now, we have to press forward, giving tax cuts for 
     education and child-rearing and child care, buying a first 
     home, finishing that job of balancing the budget without 
     violating our obligations to our parents and our children and 
     the disabled and health care, to education and the 
     environment and to our future. That's a plan that will keep 
     America on the right track, building strong families and 
     strong futures by working together.
       For everyone here who played a role in this happy day, I 
     thank you, America thanks you, and our country is better 
     because of your endeavors. God bless you. Thank you. 
     (Applause.)
       (The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. President Clinton said in the signing ceremony:

       I want to thank all the Members of Congress who are here, 
     especially Senator Kennedy who, himself, probably broke the 
     wage in hour laws by working so hard to pass this bill.

  And then in another place:

       There are a lot of people who worked hard on this bill who 
     aren't here--Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt--

  He went on to name other Members--

     led by truly tireless John Sweeney.

  And there was applause. Now, some of the same people are objecting to 
what we are doing now.
  Another quote:

       I would also like a very special word of thanks to the 
     business owners, especially the small business owners who 
     supported this bill. Many of the minimum wage employers I 
     talked to wanted to pay their employees more than $4.25 an 
     hour and would be happy to do so as long as they can do it 
     without hurting their businesses, and that means their 
     competitors have to do the same thing. This bill will allow 
     them to compete and win, to have happier, more productive 
     employees, and to know they are doing the right thing. For 
     all those small businesses, I am very, very appreciative.

  Continuing:

       I would also say that this bill does a remarkable number of 
     things for small businesses. . . .[a]nd we know that most of 
     the new jobs in America are being created by small- and 
     medium-sized businesses. In 1993 I--

  Meaning President Clinton--

     proposed a $15,000 increase in the amount of capital a small 
     business can expense, to spark the kind of investment that 
     they need to create jobs.
       As the Vice President said--

  Meaning at that time Mr. Gore--

     this bill also includes a Work Opportunity Tax Credit to 
     provide jobs for the most economically disadvantaged working 
     Americans, including people who want to move from welfare to 
     work. Now, there will be a tightly drawn economic incentive 
     for people to hire those folks and give them a chance to 
     enter the workforce, as well.

  Well, if Senators who were on the stage at that time thought that the 
work opportunity tax credit was a good thing to have, why isn't it a 
good thing to have it here, to extend it? Why not?
  This is a win-win situation. There is a win for the workers, a win 
for small business. Why should we chortle over a little thing such as 
increasing the minimum wage or having a tax provision in it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 
today the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to Snowe amendment 
No. 103, as modified, with time from 2:15 to 2:45 equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Appointment of Committee to Escort the President of the United States

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer of 
the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the 
Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House to escort 
the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint 
session to be held at 9 p.m. Tuesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from Hawaii 
wishes to address the Senate on morning business time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka and Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are going to go into a recess in a 
moment. We will come out of the party caucuses at 2:15. We are working 
on some additional amendments. The amendments of the Senator from 
Alabama, the Sessions amendments, we will try to include, if necessary, 
votes on those issues as well around the 2:45 hour. We are making some 
progress. We have a shorter evening tonight because of the President's 
State of the Union, but we want to move this legislation. It is not 
complicated. Everyone in this body, new Members who have arrived here, 
understands what the increase in the minimum wage is all about. It is 
not complex. Is it not difficult. It is not hard to understand. There 
is no reason we can't move this process quickly. If it is necessary to 
have votes, we are prepared to move along on those issues.
  We have listened this morning to those who believe that raw economic 
arguments ought to control the question of the minimum wage. We as a 
country have moved away from that. We have accepted the great 
traditions of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as the underlying 
teachings of all the religions that talk about responsibilities we all 
have for the least among us. In the Constitution of the United States, 
they have what is called the general welfare clause. The general 
welfare clause was written into the Constitution for those very 
purposes.
  The fact is, this country has rejected the law of the jungle as it 
applies to economic conditions for workers. In my State of 
Massachusetts, we had individuals at the turn of the last century, 
children, 10, 11, 12 years old, who were working 12, 15 hours a day, 
6\1/2\ days a week. We had the exploitation of children, of women, the 
exploitation of workers. We, as a country and a society, have 
recognized that we can be the strongest economy in the world and treat 
people with respect and dignity. That is why the members of Let Justice 
Roll, an extraordinary number of religious leaders representing a wide 
group of churches, talk about what the Scriptures say about poverty in 
their letter.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  January 5, 2007.
       Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned religious 
     leaders, in partnership with the Let Justice Roll Living Wage 
     Campaign, call on the 110th Congress to raise the minimum 
     wage! Let Justice Roll is a nonpartisan coalition of more 
     than 80 faith, community and labor organizations working to 
     raise the minimum wage at the state and federal level. In 
     2006, we played a major role in increasing the minimum wage 
     throughout the country at the state level.
       We strongly support the Miller/Kennedy bill that increases 
     the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. Furthermore, we 
     strongly oppose any attempts to add provisions to the bill. 
     We urge you to vote for this clean minimum wage bill.
       The Prophet Amos proclaims, ``Let justice roll down like 
     waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream'' (5:24, 
     NRSV). We are morally outraged by the number of people living 
     in poverty in the United States, and believe that now is the 
     time to give hard-working low-wage workers a raise and take 
     the first step toward a true living wage for America's 
     workers.
       It has been nearly 10 years since the last federal increase 
     in the minimum wage, and low-wage workers urgently need a 
     raise. A minimum wage employee--making $5.15 an hour, working 
     40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns about $10,700 a 
     year--about $6,000 below the federal poverty line for a 
     family of three. This situation is unconscionable and 
     immoral, as the wealth of our nation continues to be built on 
     the backs of the working poor. Working poor families in 
     America are struggling to meet the rising costs of health 
     care, gasoline and housing, and $5.15 an hour is simply not 
     enough.
       Minimum wage legislation in the past has stalled in 
     Congress because of attempts to attach unrelated provisions 
     such as tying the minimum wage to a repeal of the estate tax, 
     rolling back over-time protections or reducing the minimum 
     wage of tip workers. In addition, such provisions are harmful 
     to the very workers that a minimum wage increase is intended 
     to help. The strong victory on all the minimum wage ballot 
     initiatives is evidence that there is strong and widespread 
     support from Americans for a prompt, clean minimum wage 
     increase at the federal level.
       We appreciate the commitment made by the leadership of the 
     110th Congress to address the woefully inadequate federal 
     minimum wage. We will continue to raise our

[[Page S887]]

     voices on behalf of ``the least of these'' and proclaim that 
     a job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it.
       Signed, Rev. Dr. Paul Sherry, National Coordinator, Let 
     Justice Roll, Cleveland, OH, Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, General 
     Secretary, National Council of Churches, New York, NY, The 
     Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, The 
     Episcopal Church, NY, NY, Rev. Jim Wallis, President and CEO, 
     Sojourners/Call to Renewal, Washington, DC, Rev. John H. 
     Thomas, General Minister and President, United Church of 
     Christ, Cleveland, OH, Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, 
     Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, DC, 
     Rev. Dr. Roy Medley, Gen. Secretary, American Baptist 
     Churches in the USA, Valley Forge, PA.
       Rev. Jennifer Butler, Executive Director, Faith in Public 
     Life, Washington, DC; Mary Ellen McNish, General Secretary, 
     American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, PA; Rev. 
     William G. Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist 
     Association, Boston, MA; The Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Senior 
     Minister, The Riverside Church, New York, NY; The Rev. 
     Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church 
     USA, Louisville, KY; Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, Gen. 
     Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of 
     Christ); Rev. Roy Riley, Chair of the Conference of Bishops 
     and Bishop of the NJ Synod ELCA, NJ; Bishop Thomas J. 
     Gumbleton, Archdiocese of Detroit, MI; Rev. Dr. Stan Hastey, 
     Executive Director, The Alliance of Baptists, Washington, DC; 
     James E. Winkler, General Secretary, United Methodist Church, 
     Gen. Board of Church in Society, Washington, DC; Rev. Michael 
     Livingston, President, National Council of Churches and 
     Executive Director, ICCC, Trenton, NJ; Rev. John L. 
     McCullough, Executive Director, Church World Service; Charlie 
     Clements, President, Unitarian Universalist Service 
     Committee, Cambridge, MA; Rabbi Rebecca Alpert, Temple 
     University, Philadelphia, PA.
       Most Reverend Gabino Zavala, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese 
     of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Rev. Dr. Rita Nakashima 
     Brock, Director, Faith Voices for the Common Good, Christian 
     Church (Disciples of Christ), Oakland, CA; David A. Robinson, 
     Executive Director Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace 
     Movement, Washington, DC; Simon Greer, President and CEO, 
     Jewish Funds for Justice, New York, NY; Dr. Michael Kinnamon, 
     Chair, Justice and Advocacy Commission, National Council of 
     Churches, St. Louis, MO; Sr. Catherine McDonnell, OP, 
     Prioress of the Dominican Sister of Hope, Ossining, NY; Rev. 
     Kim Bobo, Executive Director, Interfaith Worker Justice, 
     Chicago, IL; Rev. Tom Youngblood, United Methodist, Decatur, 
     AL; The Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, Episcopal Bishop of Alaska 
     and Navajoland, AK; Rev. Trina Zelle, Arizona Interfaith 
     Worker Justice, Tempe, AZ; Rev. Briget Nicholson, Pastor, 
     First Congregational United Church of Christ, Tucson, AZ; 
     Rev. Stephen Copley, President, Arkansas Interfaith 
     Conference, United Methodist Church, North Little Rock, AR; 
     Imam Ali Siddiqui, Corona Valley, CA.
       The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director, CA Council 
     of Churches, California Church IMPACT, Sacramento CA; Bishop 
     Allan C. Bjornberg, Rocky Mountain Synod, ELCA, Denver, CO; 
     Fidel ``Butch'' Montoya, Minister Confianza, An Association 
     of Latino Ministers, Denver, CO; Sister Maureen McCormack, 
     President, The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Denver, CO; 
     The Right Rev. James E. Curry, Bishop Suffragan, Episcopal 
     Diocese of Connecticut, Hartford, CT; Rev. Dr. Davida Foy 
     Crabtree, Conference Minister, Connecticut Conference, United 
     Church of Christ, Hartford, CT; Rev. Dr, William L. Rhines, 
     Jr., Harriet R. Tubman United Methodist Church, New Castle, 
     DE; The Rt. Rev. Philip M. Duncan, II, Bishop, Diocese of the 
     Central Gulf Coast, Pensacola, FL; Rev. John F. Stanton, 
     Associate Priest, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Miami, FL; 
     Rev. Charles Buck, Conference Minister, Hawaii Conf. United 
     Church of Christ, Honolulu, HI; The Rt. Rev. Harry B. 
     Bainbridge, III, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Idaho, Boise, 
     ID; Bishop Paul R. Landahl, Metropolitan Chicago Synod, 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Chicago, IL; The Rev. 
     Dr. Larry L. Greenfield, Executive Minister, American Baptist 
     Churches of Metro Chicago, Chicago, IL; Megan M. Ramer, 
     Pastor, Chicago Community Mennonite Church, Chicago, IL; The 
     Rt. Rev. Catherine Waynick, Bishop of Indianapolis, IN.
       Rev. Stephen C. Gray, Conf. Minister, Indiana-Kentucky 
     Conference, UCC, Indianapolis, IN; Rev. Dick Clark, Pastor, 
     St. Timothy's United Methodist Church, Cedar Falls, IA; Sr. 
     Joy Peterson, PBVM, President, Sisters of the Presentation of 
     BVM, Dubuque, IA; Rev. David Hansen, Conference Minister, 
     Kansas-Oklahoma Conference, United Church of Christ, Wichita, 
     KS; Rev. Albert M. Pennybacker, Former National Chair, Clergy 
     and Laity Network, Former Natl. President, The Interfaith 
     Alliance, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Lexington 
     KY; Sr. Margaret Stallmeyer, CDP, Thomas More College 
     President, Congregation of Divine Providence, Melbourne, KY; 
     Rev. David F. Kniker, Kewanee, LA; Rabbi Darah R. Lerner, 
     Congregation Beth El, Bangor, ME; Rev. David R. Gaewski, 
     Conference Minister, Maine Conference, United Church of 
     Christ, Yarmouth, ME; The Right Reverend Robert W. Ihloff, 
     Episcopal Bishop of Maryland.
       Sr. Gayle Lwanga Crumbley, National Coordinator, National 
     Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Silver 
     Spring, MD; The Rev. Dr. Jim Antal, Conference Minister and 
     President, Massachusetts Conference, United Church of Christ, 
     Framingham, MA; Rabbi David Lerner, Temple Emunah, Lexington, 
     MA; Johanna Chao Rittenburg, Economic Justice Program 
     Manager, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Cambridge, 
     MA; Rev. Dr. Kent J. Ulery, Conference Minister, Michigan 
     Conference United Church of Christ, East Lansing MI; Lucinda 
     Keils, Executive Director, Detroit Metropolitan Interfaith 
     Committee on Worker Issues, Detroit, MI; Rev. Peg Chemberlin, 
     Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches, 
     Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Dr. Karen Smith Sellers, Conference 
     Minister, Minnesota Conference United Church of Christ, 
     Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Charlene B. Burch, Interim Conference 
     Minister, Missouri Mid-South Conference, United Church of 
     Christ, St. Louis. MO; Rev. W. Audrey Hollis, Organizer, St. 
     Louis Area Jobs With Justice, St. Louis, MO.
       The Rev. Randall Hyvonen, Conference Minister, Montana-
     Northern Wyoming Conference, United Church of Christ, 
     Billings, MT; Rev. F. Vernon Wright, Minister, UCC, Helena, 
     MT; Rev. Dr. Dallas Dee Brauninger, Burwell, NE; Mr. David 
     Lamarre-Vincent, Exec. Dir., New Hampshire Council of 
     Churches, Concord, NH; The Rev. Eleanor McLaughlin, Ph.D. 
     Rector, St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, Berlin, NH; The Rev. 
     Bruce H. Davidson, Dir., Lutheran Office of Governmental 
     Ministry in NJ, Trenton, NJ; Frank McCann, Director, Just 
     Neighbors Program, Summit, NJ; The Reverend Elizabeth Purdum, 
     Pastor, St. Luke Lutheran Church, Albuquerque, NM; The 
     Reverend Arthur Meyer, Manager, Pastoral Care Dept, San Juan 
     Regional Medical Center, Farmington, NM; The Rt. Rev. Jack 
     McKelvey, Episcopal Bishop of Rochester, NY.
       The Rt. Rev. Catherine S. Roskam, Bishop Suffragan of the 
     Episcopal Diocese of New York; Rev. Ned Wight, Executive 
     Director, Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter 
     Rock, Manhasset, NY; Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Director of 
     Education, Jewish Funds for Justice, New York, NY; Rev. 
     Nelson Johnson, Board Chair, Interfaith Worker Justice, 
     Greensboro, NC; Rev. Ginny N. Britt, Director, The Advocacy 
     for the Poor, Winston-Salem, NC; Rev. Dr. Charles R. Traylor, 
     Executive Presbyter, Presbytery of the Northern Plains, 
     Presbyterian Church (USA), Fargo, ND; Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price, 
     Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio, Columbus, OH; 
     Rev. Callon Holloway, Jr., Bishop for Southern Ohio Synod, 
     ELCA, Columbus, OH.
       Rev. Rebecca Tollefson, Executive Director, Ohio Council of 
     Churches, Columbus, OH; Rev. Ron Hooker, Chair of Church in 
     the World Commission, Central-Southeast Association of the 
     Ohio Conference UCC, Columbus, OH; Fr. Clark Sheckelford, 
     Rector, Emmanuel Episcopal, Shawnee, OK; Rev. Robin Meyers, 
     Pastor, Mayflower UCC, Oklahoma City, OK; Rev. John M. Gantt, 
     interim Conference Minister, Central Pacific Conference of 
     the United Church of Christ, Portland, OR; Norene Goplen, 
     Director, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Oregon, Portland OR; 
     Gary Straughan, President, Eastern District Executive Board, 
     Moravian Church, Northern Province, Bethlehem, PA; Rev. 
     Sandra L. Strauss, Director of Public Advocacy, Pennsylvania 
     Council of Churches, Harrisburg, PA; Rabbi Gail Glicksman, 
     Dean of Students, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, 
     Wyncote, PA.
       Rev. Christopher H. Bender, Pastor, Dormition of the 
     Theotokos Greek Orthodox Church, Aliquippa, PA; Father Jack 
     O'Malley, Labor Religion Coalition of Western PA; Rev. John 
     Zehring, Kingston Congregational Church, Kingston, RI; Rev. 
     Peter E. Lanzillotta, Ph.D., Minister, The Unitarian Church 
     in Charleston, Charleston, SC; Bishop Craig B. Anderson (VIII 
     South Dakota)--Retired, SD; Rev. Rebekah Jordan, Executive 
     Director, Mid-South Interfaith Network for Economic Justice, 
     Memphis, TN; Dr. Nabil Bayakly, Muslims in Memphis, Memphis, 
     TN; Rev. Janet Wolf, United Methodist Clergy, Hobson United 
     Methodist Church, Chair, Division of Church Vocations, 
     American Baptist College, Nashville, TN; The Reverend Jeff 
     St. Clair, Pastor, New Hope Lutheran Church, EI Paso, TX.
       Rev. Tom VandeStadt, Pastor, Congregational Church of 
     Austin United Church of Christ, TX; Linda Hilton, Director, 
     Coalition of Religious Communities, Salt Lake City, UT; Kay 
     Miller, Salt Lake City Police Dept Chaplain, All Saints 
     Episcopal Church, Salt Lake City; The Rt. Rev. Neff Powell, 
     Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia, Roanoke, 
     VA; Rev. C. Douglas Smith, Executive Director, Virginia 
     Interfaith Center for Public Policy, Richmond, VA; Francis X. 
     Doyle, (retired) Associate General Secretary, U.S. Conference 
     of Catholic Bishops, Ashburn, VA; Rev. Paul Benz, Director, 
     Lutheran Public Policy Office of Washington State Don Kelly, 
     Co-chair, UU Voices for Justice, Seattle, WA.
       Fr. James E. Hug, S.J, President, Center of Concern, 
     Washington, DC; Rev. Marvin M. Silver, United Church of 
     Christ Justice & Witness Ministries, Washington, DC; Rev. Dr. 
     Ken Brooker Langston, Director, Disciples Justice Action 
     Network, Coordinator, Disciples Center for Public Witness, 
     Washington, DC; Mr. Curtis Ramsey-Lucas, National Coordinator 
     of Public and Social Advocacy, National Ministries, American 
     Baptist Churches USA, Washington, DC; Rev. Elenora Giddings 
     Ivory, Director, Washington Office, Presbyterian Church 
     (USA), Washington, DC; Rev. Romal J. Tune, CEO,

[[Page S888]]

     Clergy Strategic Alliances, LLC, Washington, DC; Alexia 
     Kelley, Executive Director, Catholics in Alliance for the 
     Common Good, Washington DC; Rev. Ernest S. Lyght, Bishop, 
     West Virginia Conf., United Methodist Church, Charleston, WV; 
     Rev. Lori Fell, Morgantown, WV; Scott Anderson, Executive 
     Director, Wisconsin Council of Churches, Sun Prairie, WI; 
     Rev. Robert Chapman, Pastor, Mount of Olives Lutheran Church, 
     Rock Springs, WY.
       For a complete list of signatories in formation, please 
     visit http://www.letjusticeroll.org
/pdfs/20070105NationalMinWageletter.pdf
____

 I am a member of NETWORK, A Catholic Social Justice Lobby, 
     and I support S. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007--to 
     increase to the minimum wage from $5.15 to 7.25. Long 
     overdue, this bill provides a first step towards a dignified 
     life for low-wage workers in poverty. I urge you to support a 
     ``clean'' bill to raise the federal minimum wage--one that 
     does not attempt to add provisions of any kind and instead 
     allows it to pass as a stand-alone issue.
       Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that all persons are 
     created by God, which is the basis for their dignity. In 
     justice and to live with dignity, each human person working 
     full time should be compensated enough to support him/herself 
     and a family. It has been almost ten years since Congress 
     voted to increase the minimum wage. Currently, a minimum wage 
     employee who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year makes 
     $10,700 for that year. For a single parent with two children, 
     that amount is thousands of dollars below the poverty line. 
     This is unconscionable. Workers who provide security, clean 
     hotels, wash dishes and haul supplies should not have to rely 
     on charity or government assistance to get by. The proposed 
     minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour (from $5.15/hr.) would 
     give an additional $4,368 per year to a full-time worker 
     making minimum wage. This would bring them a step closer to 
     obtaining a livable wage which would provide for a family's 
     basic needs: food, shelter, health care, clothing, education 
     and recreation.
       The minimum wage should be increased without any extra 
     provisions or tax breaks in order avoid establishing such a 
     precedent. Since the last minimum wage increase, congress has 
     passed no fewer than five tax relief packages which have 
     provided small businesses with up to $36 billion in tax 
     breaks. While congress has had no problem providing tax 
     breaks for small businesses without considering raising the 
     minimum wage, it seems impossible for some that the minimum 
     wage be raised without a tax break for small businesses. 
     Given the urgency of the minimum wage increase it is best to 
     avoid linking it to other issues and pass it as a stand-alone 
     ``clean'' bill.
       The American people have spoken out on the urgency of this 
     bill. With strong victories in all six minimum wage ballot 
     initiatives this election, voters have shown concern for 
     hardworking people in poverty. People who work full-time 
     should earn enough to support themselves and their families. 
     Consequently, I call on you to act justly, and challenge your 
     other members to do the same. I urge you to quickly pass the 
     minimum wage bill with no extra add-on provisions as it comes 
     up this January.

  Mr. KENNEDY. They mention Matthew's great teachings. The questioner 
says: When did I fail to treat you well? And the Lord says: When you 
failed to treat the least of these among us.
  We are talking about a minimum wage, not an optimum wage. As the 
charts show, it has declined dramatically over a period of years, now 
at $5.15, far away from what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, right 
through the 1980s. We believe that in this country, with the strongest 
economy in the world, people who work hard 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of 
the year, should not have to live in poverty. An increase in the 
minimum wage is long overdue. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity in 
this body to express our views on this in the near future.
  If there are no further speakers, I suggest that we recess, according 
to the leadership's earlier request.

                          ____________________