[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1307-S1315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative 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.
       Kyl amendment No. 115 (to amendment No. 100), to extend 
     through December 31, 2008, the depreciation treatment of 
     leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements.
       Enzi (for Ensign/Inhofe) amendment No. 152 (to amendment 
     No. 100), to reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, 
     and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system.
       Enzi (for Ensign) amendment No. 153 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to preserve and protect Social Security benefits of American 
     workers, including those making minimum wage, and to help 
     ensure greater Congressional oversight of the Social Security 
     system by requiring that both Houses of Congress approve a 
     totalization agreement before the agreement, giving foreign 
     workers Social Security benefits, can go into effect.
       Vitter/Voinovich amendment No. 110 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to amend title 44 of the United States Code, to provide for 
     the suspension of fines under certain circumstances for 
     first-time paperwork violations by small business concerns.
       DeMint amendment No. 155 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative 
     governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in 
     interstate commerce, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 regarding the disposition of unused health benefits 
     in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements and the 
     use of health savings accounts for the payment of health 
     insurance premiums for high deductible health plans purchased 
     in the individual market.
       DeMint amendment No. 156 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 regarding the disposition 
     of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible 
     spending arrangements.
       DeMint amendment No. 157 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 100), to increase the Federal 
     minimum wage by an amount that is based on applicable State 
     minimum wages.
       DeMint amendment No. 159 (to amendment No. 100), to protect 
     individuals from having their money involuntarily collected 
     and used for lobbying by a labor organization.
       DeMint amendment No. 160 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow certain small 
     businesses to defer payment of tax.
       DeMint amendment No. 161 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     prohibit the use of flexible schedules by Federal employees 
     unless such flexible schedule benefits are made available to 
     private sector employees not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.
       DeMint amendment No. 162 (to amendment No. 100), to amend 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 regarding the minimum 
     wage.
       Kennedy (for Kerry) amendment No. 128 (to amendment No. 
     100), to direct the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration to establish a pilot program to provide 
     regulatory compliance assistance to small business concerns.
       Martinez amendment No. 105 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     clarify the house parent exemption to certain wage and hour 
     requirements.
       Sanders amendment No. 201 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     express the sense of the Senate concerning poverty.
       Gregg amendment No. 203 (to amendment No. 100), to enable 
     employees to use employee option time.
       Burr amendment No. 195 (to amendment No. 100), to provide 
     for an exemption to a minimum wage increase for certain 
     employers who contribute to their employees' health benefit 
     expenses.
       Chambliss amendment No. 118 (to amendment No. 100), to 
     provide minimum wage rates for agricultural workers.
       Kennedy (for Feinstein) amendment No. 167 (to amendment No. 
     118), to improve agricultural job opportunities, benefits, 
     and security for aliens in the United States.
       Enzi (for Allard) amendment No. 169 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to prevent identity theft by allowing the sharing of social 
     security data among government agencies for immigration 
     enforcement purposes.
       Enzi (for Cornyn) amendment No. 135 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 
     Federal unemployment surtax.
       Enzi (for Cornyn) amendment No. 138 (to amendment No. 100), 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
     workplace health incentives by equalizing the tax 
     consequences of employee athletic facility use.
       Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 209 (to amendment No. 
     100), to extend through December 31, 2012, the increased 
     expensing for small businesses.
       Division I of Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 210 (to 
     amendment No. 100), to provide for the permanent extension of 
     increasing expensing for small businesses, the depreciation 
     treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space 
     improvements, and the work opportunity tax credit.
       Division II of Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 210 (to 
     amendment No. 100), to provide for the permanent extension of 
     increasing expensing for small businesses, the depreciation 
     treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space 
     improvements, and the work opportunity tax credit.
       Division III of Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 210 (to 
     amendment No. 100), to provide for the permanent extension of 
     increasing expensing for small businesses, the depreciation 
     treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space 
     improvements, and the work opportunity tax credit.
       Division IV of Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 210 (to 
     amendment No. 100), to provide for the permanent extension of 
     increasing expensing for small businesses, the depreciation 
     treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space 
     improvements, and the work opportunity tax credit.
       Division V of Sessions (for Kyl) amendment No. 210 (to 
     amendment No. 100), to provide for the permanent extension of 
     increasing expensing for small businesses, the depreciation 
     treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space 
     improvements, and the work opportunity tax credit.
       Durbin amendment No. 221 (to amendment No. 157), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12:15 
p.m. shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees, with the time from 11:55 to 12:05 under the control of the 
minority leader, and the time from 12:05 to 12:15 under the control of 
the majority leader.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes to speak on the 
minimum wage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, Rev. Jim 
Wallis and Rev. Bob Griswold--who was then-head of the Episcopal 
Church--presented to Congress a document that

[[Page S1308]]

proved to be both prophetic and practical.
  The basic tenets were that budgets are moral documents--these are 
coming from two people of faith, religious leaders in our country--and 
our values are represented by how we craft those documents.
  The same can be said for legislation, and the same values represented 
in the fight, for example, to raise the minimum wage.
  As wages have stagnated in States such as Ohio, CEO salaries have 
skyrocketed. And while Congress voted time and again to raise its own 
pay--six times in the 10 years since the minimum wage has been raised--
it left behind millions of Americans who work hard, who play by the 
rules, and who too often have so little to show for their hard work.
  In my home State of Ohio, voters in November echoed the national cry 
for social and economic justice by voting in favor of a ballot 
initiative to raise our State's minimum wage.
  In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King said:

       Equality means dignity. And dignity means a job and a 
     paycheck that lasts through the week.

  It is unacceptable that someone can work full time--and work hard--
and not be able to lift her family out of poverty or even pay her 
bills. For too long Government priorities rewarded a system that 
allowed a minimum wage worker to earn less than $11,000 a year. Yet 
some CEOs in our great country make more than $11,000 an hour.
  Those who vote against the minimum wage this week--those who have 
blocked a minimum wage increase in the House of Representatives and in 
this Senate for a decade--are saying to minimum wage workers such as 
the single mother working as a chambermaid in Cleveland and a farm 
worker outside Toledo and a janitor in Zanesville that they do not 
deserve a fraction--not a fraction--of what we get.
  While the cost of living has gone up, the investment in workers has 
slowly declined. Family budgets are strained because of stagnant wages 
but pushed to the breaking point when you factor in soaring tuition 
costs, health care costs, and energy costs.
  Yet while wages have stayed stagnant or gone down, worker 
productivity in this country, as Senator Kennedy showed a moment ago, 
continues to go up. Those workers are not sharing in the wealth they 
are creating for their employers. It is time Congress stood on the side 
of the working men and women in this country.
  This issue is not just about workers. Raising the minimum wage 
affects entire families and communities. In my State, the minimum wage 
increase will mean an increase for 500,000 wage earners, with 200,000 
children living in those homes.
  When workers earn a livable wage--and especially if we can expand the 
earned-income tax credit, a tax break for those workers--those 
families, who are working hard and playing by the rules, will spend 
that money locally, which supports small business and helps strengthen 
the community.
  When workers earn a livable wage, stress and burdens that often 
cripple families struggling to survive are eased.
  When workers earn a livable wage, they are more productive at work, 
which means thriving companies that can compete in the global economy.
  Raising the minimum wage means so much more than a few extra dollars 
on Friday. It means a path out of poverty.
  Raising the minimum wage is an affirmation that this Congress--
finally--values American workers. It is about the right family values, 
and it is about time.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Baucus substitute to H.R. 2. At about 
the noon hour today, we will be voting to end the debate on the minimum 
wage bill. Regardless of how that vote turns out, I believe the 
direction this body has decided upon with regard to minimum wage is 
clear. And I appreciate it. The direction the Senate has taken is that 
raising the minimum wage without providing relief for small businesses 
would be wrong. And now we have a cloture vote on a bill that includes 
relief for small businesses, which will soften the impact that the 
minimum wage increase will have on small businesses.
  We are trying to keep working families working. The people who run 
these small businesses are working families, too. They are taking a lot 
of risk and providing a lot of jobs. In fact, they are the engine that 
drives the United States. The big companies would like us to think they 
are. But small businesses create a lot of jobs.
  Now, primarily, the jobs we are talking about are for people just 
entering the labor market, the ones often who dropped out of school, 
who have very low employment skills. Those small businesses teach them 
some skills and move them on up to the path of employment. They are a 
huge part of the job training system in this country and they rarely 
get any credit for job training.
  We have had debate over the last week--and it has just been one week. 
I would like to point out that on Monday we did not have any votes. On 
Tuesday we were only allowed two votes. Through the whole week we only 
had 11 votes. We were not allowed any votes after Thursday, which 
included all of Friday and all of yesterday. That is really not an open 
process. That is only three days of voting on amendments.
  When we began this session, we talked about having an open process, a 
very bipartisan process of doing things. I am not sure we got the 
message from the last election, which was that the American people want 
us to do these things, but they want us to do them in a bipartisan way. 
I am hearing some rhetoric on the Senate floor about the Republicans 
want to do this; and the Democrats want to do that.
  What we need to talk about is what we need to do for America. We need 
to work together on these things. Right now we have a proposal for 
cloture that includes what both sides have been talking about, that 
takes care of the minimum wage worker and takes care of the businesses 
that employ them and gives them the training.
  We in the Senate recognize that small businesses have been the steady 
engine for growing the economy and that they have been the source of 
new job creation. America's working families rely on small businesses, 
and small businesses rely on working families.
  So I am proud this body has chosen a path that attempts to preserve 
this segment of the economy which employs so many working men and 
women. The Senate has recognized that our economy is interdependent. 
One simply cannot claim credit to be helping workers at the same time 
they are hurting the businesses that employ them. Recognition of this 
simple fact is the reason the bill before this body couples a raise in 
the minimum wage with relief to those businesses and working families 
that will face the most difficulty in meeting that mandate.
  This body has also recognized the even simpler fact that raising the 
minimum wage is of no benefit to a worker without a job or a job seeker 
without a prospect.
  I take this occasion to urge that these simple, real world truths be 
recognized by our colleagues in the other Chamber. I have gone through 
this process before on a number of bills and tried to figure out how it 
happens. A lot of time there is more animosity between the two Houses 
than there is between the two parties that serve in those Houses.
  I know making any change to the minimum wage bill they sent over will 
upset them on that end, just as any change they make to a bill on their 
end upsets us. We send them perfect bills and they have to fiddle with 
it, and they send us perfect bills and we fiddle with it. There is some 
animosity between the two Chambers. And then we have to get into the 
rules as well. All tax measures have to start in the House. That is 
fine as long as they start them. But there has to be a way to get the 
process moving.
  This bill has a way to get that process moving. It is more cumbersome 
than it probably ought to be, but I think with cooperation it will 
work, and I think the House will join us in this effort. It isn't as 
easy as just taking a small piece of something that affects the economy 
and doing it in isolation. When we start going to the broader economy, 
it gets more complicated.
  That is why our forefathers designed this great system of cumbersome 
Government. We have 100 people with 100

[[Page S1309]]

views--I don't know, maybe we have 100 people with 200 views, and the 
House has 435 people with at least an equal number of views. The beauty 
of our system is that it has to get through this maze of all of these 
people with different backgrounds and different ideas and different 
ways of seeing the world, which results in amendments which result 
usually in things getting better.
  It is often complicated, and that slows the process down. That is 
something we have to work through, but I think any mechanism we have 
that speeds things up usually results in us winding up with legislation 
we have to go back and correct. It is a tough system, a long system, 
but it works.
  Unquestionably, as this Congress moves forward, we will need to 
confront a range of issues facing working families. We have to face the 
rising cost of health insurance and the availability of that insurance, 
the necessity and costs of education and job training, and the desire 
to achieve an appropriate balance between work and family life.
  These are important issues, and the way this body has determined to 
address the minimum wage should give us an outline as to the way such 
other issues could be approached as well. We need to listen to each 
other and include those issues that make a difference without upsetting 
the whole world. It can be done. It has been done.
  Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus work together on legislation. 
They are the ones who put together this tax package. They said: No, 
this isn't exactly what I like or you like, but it is something we can 
like together, and it has a chance of passing this body.
  I have been pleased that there hasn't been a rage against the tax 
package they put together, just as there hasn't been a rage against 
raising the minimum wage. We appear to have two points on which there 
is agreement. I think that will be reflected later in today's vote, 
too.
  There are other issues. Those other issues have been reflected in 
amendments from our side. There have been a few, contrary to what has 
been said on the floor, amendments from the other side as well. When we 
were in the majority, we didn't put in nearly as many amendments on 
bills as the Democrats did, and I recognize why offering amendments is 
important. It is important because we have issues we think are 
important, and the only chance you have to have them passed on the 
floor is to put them in a bill as an amendment, if you are in the 
minority.
  So on our side, we will likely offer more amendments to the bills 
that come up this year than those who got to draft the bill to begin 
with. They are ideas we want to have considered. We hope they will be 
considered in a reasonable way and in a reasonable amount of time.
  I will be emphasizing to our side the need to keep those reasonable 
and to keep them within a reasonable timeframe. If we do that, we can 
progress through a lot of issues, such as the ones I mentioned.
  The rising cost and availability of health insurance in this country 
is at a crisis and we have to do something about it. There are a number 
of plans that are floating out there, and all of them--all of them--
have some good points to them. None of them is perfect. That bill will 
have to go through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. 
It probably will. There are ways it can be written, I suppose, where it 
can be sent through the Judiciary Committee or sent through the Finance 
Committee. But usually that bill goes through the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee.
  The chairman of the committee and I as ranking member of that 
committee--and it doesn't matter what session of Congress we are 
talking about or what decade of Congress you are talking about--the 
chairman and the ranking member in that committee often have a huge 
disparity of views on how to solve the health, education, labor, and 
pensions issues.
  We adopted 2 years ago a little rule that I found to be very useful 
when I was in the Wyoming legislature, and that is the 80-20 rule. That 
is, people agree on 80 percent of the issues and 80 percent of any 
issue. This isn't just a philosophy for Congress, this is a philosophy 
for one's daily life. If you are working with other people, you will 
probably find you will agree on 80 percent of whatever you are talking 
about. On any particular issue, you usually agree on 80 percent of that 
issue. If you concentrate on the 80 percent of agreement, there are a 
lot of possibilities for getting things done. If you concentrate on the 
20 percent on which you don't agree, there is very little likelihood 
that you are going to progress on whatever it is you are talking about.

  That is something we have instituted in this committee, and I think 
that rule has moved it from the most contentious committee to the most 
productive committee. I don't know if people noticed during the last 
session of Congress, there were 35 bills brought out of that committee. 
We got 25 of them considered in the Senate and even helped the House to 
get 2 of theirs through. So we helped to get 27 bills signed by the 
President. That is at least 20 more than usual for any committee and 
probably about 24 more than usual for any committee.
  There are disadvantages to that. The press likes a good fight, and 
the press is more than willing to report on a good fight. We didn't 
have fights on those 27 bills that were signed. The most contentious 
one was the pension bill. The pension bill was 980 pages. It covers how 
to save people's pensions, how to make sure when they retire they will 
get what they have been promised, what they deserve, what they want, 
something that will give them quality of life in retirement. We made 
the most significant change in pension law in 30 years.
  I remember that we had an agreement before we ever brought it to the 
floor that there would be 1 hour of debate, two amendments, and the 
final vote. I went to the Parliamentarian at that time and explained 
what we were doing and made sure it was getting written up properly so 
we could do that the moment we began the debate.
  I asked: When is the last time that complicated of a bill had that 
kind of an agreement?
  The words I heard back were: Not in my lifetime.
  So it is possible to take difficult bills and arrive at agreement 
that will move the people's business forward.
  The unfortunate thing for the people of America is that when they are 
watching us on this floor, what they usually get to see is the 20 
percent with which we disagree, the 20 percent we are not going to give 
in on, the 20 percent that defines us.
  I will be urging my side, and I have said it several times, there are 
issues that define us, but every issue is not an issue that defines us. 
We will probably be trying to figure out a way on every bill to make it 
a defining bill. With the amendments we have done on this bill, there 
has been some defining. But we have an opportunity today--I think it is 
going to happen at 12:15 p.m.--to invoke cloture on the package that 
includes what was asked for by this side and delivered by the other 
side.
  That is pretty landmark. That is pretty good. We do have the other 
business that needs to get done. It doesn't have to be done on this 
bill. Maybe in the meantime there are some issues we can work on--the 
issues we talked about in some of these amendments--where we can reach 
that 80 percent agreement and we can move on with those issues.
  In addressing the minimum wage, we have rejected the notion that it 
will be a clean bill. Ultimately, we did so because it is not a clean 
issue. By that, I mean neither the real world nor questions of national 
economics nor social policy are as simple as we would like them to be. 
Quite the contrary. They are complex and they are interrelated. While 
pretending that economic or social issues are simple, it often makes 
for great rhetoric here, and it makes for great politics, but it seldom 
makes responsible policy. Around here, clean more often than not simply 
means ``do it my way'' and does not respect the democratic process and 
allow the Senate to work its will.
  I am pleased we rejected such false simplicity and chose the course 
of coupling an increased wage with provisions that will assist these 
small business employers who will be facing the greatest difficulties 
in paying these increased costs.
  I hope we do not forget the wisdom of this approach as we address 
other workplace, economic, and social issues.

[[Page S1310]]

None of these are simple and none, no matter how laudable the end, are 
without costs or free from the danger of unintended consequences where, 
in an effort to do some good, we wind up causing great harm.
  I am also heartened that in the course of this debate, this body has 
begun to recognize what I know from my life to be true. Working 
families are not only those who are employed by businesses, they are 
also those who own the businesses.
  I have noted many times that I was a small business owner, that my 
wife and I operated mom-and-pop shoe stores in Wyoming and Montana. My 
story is not unique, particularly in today's economy. I know all small 
business owners have two families: their own and the families of those 
who work for them. I also know that business owners feel the pressure 
of rising costs, the dilemma of difficult options, and the 
uncomfortable squeeze of modern life in both of their families as much 
as many workers do on their own.
  One will find that small business people are more connected to their 
workers. They work with them shoulder to shoulder on a daily basis. 
They know what is happening in their lives. I believe we have begun to 
realize this reality in the way we approach the minimum wage 
legislation. I do not think we should lose sight of it as it moves 
through this Congress.
  I also note that while I am pleased with the overall approach this 
body adopted, I am somewhat disappointed that it was not as complete as 
it could have been. In the event cloture is invoked, we would not have 
addressed a range of issues that were offered as early amendments and 
should have been considered and voted on. In this respect, I mention 
again those I mentioned late last week: Senator Gregg's amendment on 
employee option time, something we allow Federal sector employees to 
do; Senator DeMint's amendment dealing with the same matter, as well as 
Senator Burr's amendment on health insurance costs; and Senator 
Vitter's amendment that would have provided measured monetary relief 
for small businesses that make inadvertent paperwork errors in 
providing Government-required information--first-time basis, corrected, 
no impact to the employee.
  All of these were well reasoned, would have provided benefits in 
addition to or in counterbalance to a minimum wage hike, and all were 
entitled to due consideration and a vote in this Chamber. We were not 
allowed to have a vote. Many have charged the majority denied us a vote 
on these amendments because they would have been adopted and that would 
have somehow represented a win for Republicans. Therefore, goes the 
theory, voting on these amendments was prevented.
  Whether true or not, the lack of a vote on these amendments does 
nothing to lend credence to the view that Congress's partisanship too 
often trumps positive progress. The reality is good ideas do not simply 
fade away, and that if not here and now, then at some point in this 
Congress these and other good ideas must be given consideration and 
must be voted on. Fairness demands it, and our responsibility to 
working families and small businesses requires it.
  A vote for cloture is a vote for small business and working families. 
It is a vote for a well-balanced and bipartisan solution. I am pleased 
that we are at this point. I will ask my colleagues to vote for 
cloture.
  Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. There is 5 minutes left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, how much time is left on the majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes 48 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the bill before 
us today because it really does not do anything to help low wage 
workers in this country in supporting families, buying health care, or 
giving them the flexibility they need to deal with family issues as 
well as hold a full-time job. I have consistently opposed a Federal 
wage mandate because I believe it is bad policy that hurts the very 
people we are trying to help with this bill. Despite that, I have 
sought to engage in constructive debate on this bill and offer 
amendments that would make it better. Unfortunately, over the course of 
this discussion, I have been forced to conclude that this whole debate 
is--let's just say less than honest. What we are talking about here in 
the Senate is not really about helping low-income workers; this is 
about mandating a starting wage, not a minimum wage, in a select group 
of States. This is a mandated starting wage because the facts show that 
two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year. We also 
know that most of these are working for restaurants and small 
businesses, and most of them are teenagers or young folks working part 
time.
  The Democratic proposal before us targets certain States 
disproportionately while leaving many other States completely or 
relatively unaffected. If passed, my home State of South Carolina would 
be subjected to a 41-percent increase in the Federal mandate and the 
inevitable job loss that will come with this. However, States such as 
California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, and others would not be 
required to raise their minimum wage at all. This is because 28 States 
plus the District of Columbia have passed laws raising their minimum 
wage above the federally mandated $5.15 per hour. Some of those States, 
such as the ones I just mentioned, have gone well beyond the $7.25 
which this Federal mandate will implement.
  If we are to have a minimum wage at all, it is better to have a 
Federalist system of government and individual States could continue to 
set their own minimum wage levels, rather than the Federal Government. 
After all, different States have very different economies as well as 
very different costs of living. We know that a dollar will go a lot 
further in San Antonio than in San Francisco, and we need to recognize 
that. Mr. President, $7.25 in San Francisco is not a bit of help, but 
in another State that is a lot more money.
  To that effect, I have offered an amendment to the current proposal 
that would have raised the minimum wage $2.10 in every State across 
this land. Had my amendment been adopted, this bill would have at least 
been more fair in the way it imposed its unfunded mandate. Ironically, 
the motion to strike my amendment was based on the fact that it was an 
unfunded Federal mandate, which is precisely what the underlying bill 
is at this point.
  We have tried to add some other provisions. There is some tax relief 
for small businesses that mostly hire minimum wage workers, but we have 
not gone nearly far enough.
  I heard my dear colleague from Massachusetts oppose very vocally any 
tax relief for small businesses that will bear the brunt of an 
increased minimum wage. I think it is just important to point out what 
we are trying to do. This is a chart which compares the amount of, what 
some of us would call porkbarrel spending for what we call the Boston 
Big Dig. The Federal Government's part of bailing this out is $8.5 
billion. What we are asking for, for thousands of businesses and 
millions of low wage workers across this country, is tax relief of less 
than that, that would help people keep more workers and be more 
profitable.
  I understand I am running out of time. I hope this whole debate about 
helping low wage workers would include those areas which will really 
help people who are working full time at $8, $10, $12 an hour and 
having a difficult time getting by: If we could make that health care 
more accessible and more affordable; if we could do for them what we do 
for Federal Government workers and give them flexibility so if they 
need an afternoon off to drive on a field trip one day on one week, 
they can work an extra 4 or 5 hours the next week to make it up, then 
they call it even--there is no overtime, there is no penalty. 
Government workers get it, but we will not give that same benefit to 
workers all across this country.
  I am going to vote against cloture on this bill because cloture is 
designed to cut off debate. Many of the amendments that would help low 
wage workers are being eliminated. What it comes down to is just an 
unfunded mandate on several States, leaving out others.

[[Page S1311]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Then I believe the leader's time has been reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, just to put this whole issue in some perspective, I 
thought I would just take a minute or two to refresh both this body and 
those who are interested in this issue about increasing the minimum 
wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, about what has happened to workers 
and what has happened, basically, to the middle class over the period 
of the last years.
  Looking at this chart here, from 1947 to 1973, this is when the 
country was moving along together. This shows the different incomes. It 
divides the incomes of Americans into five different--effectively 
buckets: the lowest 20 percent, the second 20 percent, the middle 20 
percent, the fourth 20 percent, and the top.
  If you look at this for a period of 26 years, you will see that all 
America grew together. The economy worked for all Americans. As a 
matter of fact, it worked a little bit better for those with the lowest 
income, but the economy worked for all America. During that period of 
time, we had Republicans and Democrats alike who voted for the increase 
in the minimum wage as we increased in productivity. America went along 
together.
  What has happened in the last several years, from 2001 to 2004? Here 
we have the lowest 20 percent. This represents the low-income groups, 
the minimum wage workers, then the second, third, middle, fourth, and 
the highest 20 percent is the gray area, and the top 1 percent is 
demonstrated by the red area. See what has happened to the country, how 
we have grown further and further apart--the explosion in wealth for 
the very top and the collapse of the American promise at the very 
lowest; the cutting out of millions of Americans from the hopes and the 
dreams and the idea of a fair and just America.
  Those are the statistics. Those are the facts. We had a minimum wage 
which reflected that progress for 26 years when America grew together. 
We have now had 10 years of no growth in the minimum wage, and we see 
America growing further apart. We have a chance to do something about 
it this noontime. I am hopeful that we will.
  As I mentioned earlier, I don't know why it is our friends on the 
other side have really such a contemptuous attitude about low-income 
working people. They eliminated the overtime program for 6 million 
Americans last year--6 million Americans who otherwise would have 
gotten an increase in the minimum wage. They eliminated that. When we 
had the crisis down in New Orleans, one of the first things the 
administration did was eliminate what they call the Davis-Bacon 
program, which is to provide wages that will be pegged to what the 
average wage is in that particular region, where construction workers 
average $29,000 a year. What in the world is wrong with someone making 
$29,000 a year so that you want to reduce their pay while they are 
working for the recovery from Katrina? But oh, no, they eliminated that 
kind of protection. Just as they cut back on the unemployment 
compensation for workers who were coming out of Katrina, and after the 
National Academy of Sciences said that with what is happening in the 
poultry business and the meat-cutting business, with computers, we need 
to do something primarily about women in the workplace on the issues of 
ergonomics--no way. No way we are going to look out after workers.
  It is difficult for me to understand. What is it about it? What 
really gets our Republican friends that they just can't stand hard-
working people? We will hear a lot of comments and lectures about, 
let's make work pay, that work paying is a real value. I hope we don't 
hear that lecture anymore around here from that side. I hope we are not 
going to hear anymore talk of values about it. The leaders of the great 
religions are in strong support. I have put those comments into the 
Record. They are in strong support of this. They believe it is a moral 
issue, to follow the admonition of Saint Matthew: What you do to the 
least of these, you do unto me. Talk about poverty. Talk about the 
poor.
  This is just about a wage, the minimum wage. But it is about a just 
wage. What is it about that?
  I see my friend from Ohio on the Senate floor. I know he has been 
interested in and has spoken about the issues of minimum wage and also 
about what has been happening in the middle class. I am glad to 
entertain any questions he might have or yield for any comment that he 
might wish to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I 
appreciate especially his discussion about honoring work in this 
country. We hear talk of family values. We hear talk of honoring people 
who work hard and play by the rules. Yet, as the Senator recounted, the 
minimum wage hasn't been increased for 10 years. There has been almost 
a hostility to workers in this body and down the hall in the House of 
Representatives, where 6 million workers, as Senator Kennedy pointed 
out, have lost their overtime or have had their overtime limited. There 
were attempts to cut the prevailing wage in Louisiana when the average 
wage of workers in Louisiana in the building trades was only $29,000.
  When you look at the charts Senator Kennedy pointed out, you see 
there is an absolute stagnation or decline in wages in the last 5 years 
for most Americans--for the 80 percent lowest paid Americans, if you 
will. But the top 20 percent have seen their wages, their salaries, 
just skyrocket. That is coupled with the fact that 1 percent, the 
wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country possess more of the 
wealth of this country than the 90 percent lowest of the rest of us.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that issue?
  Mr. BROWN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator understands. I have listened to him speak 
very eloquently in his maiden speech about what has happened in the 
middle class of America. The Senator understands that when we saw 
productivity increase in the 1960s and 1970s, all during this period 
when there was economic growth, we all went up together. The rising 
tide raised all the boats across the country. Then look at what 
happened. Productivity went up, and the real minimum wage went down.
  Does the Senator not share the belief with me that if workers are 
going to work hard and produce--we have the labor force that is the 
hardest working labor force in the industrial world. It works longer, 
harder, and has had the greatest increase in productivity. Does the 
Senator not agree with me that at least some of that increase in 
productivity should have been passed on to working families?
  Mr. BROWN. Absolutely. The real strength of our middle-class economy 
over the years, the opportunity through education, through hard work 
that has built a very prosperous country, really has operated under the 
assumption that if you are more productive, you share in the wealth you 
create--whether you are a minimum wage worker, whether you are an 
engineer, whether you are a schoolteacher--whoever you are. You are 
adding to the wealth of your employer, the wealth of our country, 
making our country better off. Clearly, when you talk about a higher 
minimum wage, when the minimum wage has declined and wages have 
declined overall, these workers are creating wealth for their employer, 
but simply are not sharing in that wealth. That is why one of the best 
selling books out there now is a book called ``War Against The Middle 
Class.''

  As Senator Kennedy has said, it is clear that as productivity has 
gone up, as workers are working harder than ever before, only a 
relatively small number of people are sharing in the wealth they create 
or sharing in the productivity gains that have always marked the 
success of our country and of our economy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, can I ask the Senator another question. 
This good Senator was in the House of Representatives last year when 
the administration limited overtime pay for six million workers, and 
tens of thousands in my State of Massachusetts--tens of thousands. 
Close to 60,000 or 70,000

[[Page S1312]]

workers lost overtime pay. Overtime pay--if you are going to work more 
than 40 hours a week, you should be paid overtime. The administration 
eliminated that overtime pay for workers. They cut back on the 
protections of Davis-Bacon in the gulf and the recovery of the gulf. 
The workers down there who were unemployed, they ended the unemployment 
compensation for those workers who were otherwise eligible for it. This 
is unemployment compensation.
  We want to remind everyone that the workers contribute to the 
unemployment compensation fund. They contribute as workers. If you 
don't contribute, you don't get unemployment compensation. So these are 
workers who have contributed to the fund. The fund was in surplus at 
that time. These are workers who have worked hard and couldn't find the 
jobs down there, and the administration cut back on those protections, 
cut back on the ergonomic protections. Even before the Sago mines, we 
find out they cut back in the mine safety and on safety officials. What 
is it? What is it, if the Senator from Ohio can help me.
  I know about the great loss of jobs because of the support for tax 
incentives that sent jobs overseas and the failure to try and turn off 
that spigot. That means something for the middle-class workers. So if 
you add all of those together--we will find a chance now at 12 
o'clock--if you add all of these together, we find the hostility--I 
call it hostility, not indifference--but hostility to workers, and I 
have difficulty understanding that.
  Maybe the Senator could help me understand what has happened in his 
State that has been so adversely impacted, closing some of those 
provisions that affected impacted workers in the trade program.
  Mr. BROWN. Absolutely. One of our friends from the other side of the 
aisle said this whole idea of raising the minimum wage is a less than 
honest effort to help working families. I am nonplussed by that.
  Senator Kennedy uses the term ``hostility'' toward workers. We are 
seeing more productivity and lower wages, except higher salaries for a 
relatively small number of people. That is not the American way. It is 
not the way we were taught in this country to honor work. It is not the 
way we were taught--to work hard and play by the rules.
  Then, on top of that, we are now building more and more tax systems 
that give the greatest tax benefits to the wealthiest, that 20 percent 
squeezed out of that 1 percent who are absolutely doing the best, and 
we do no significant tax relief for working families, no significant 
tax relief for minimum wage workers. We are not willing to address the 
earned income tax credit, we are not willing to address helping those 
middle-class workers who are playing by the rules.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more 
question, I appreciate him mentioning the earned income tax credit, 
because that can make a difference for families of three or more. They 
benefit with the earned income tax credit more than the minimum wage. 
If it is only an individual worker, an individual with a single child, 
they will benefit more with the increase. But the Senator is right, we 
ought to be trying to look at these issues in some harmony. But we 
don't hear any voices on that side to say: OK, Senator, if you want an 
increase in the minimum wage, we will give an increase in the earned 
income tax benefit. We will sit down and work something out. We don't 
hear any of that.
  I want to draw to the attention of the Senator the fact that it has 
been 10 years since we have had an increase in the minimum wage, and 
over that period of time we have provided $276 billion in tax breaks 
for corporations, $36 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. We 
hear around here on the floor: Well, we haven't given the businesses 
enough and we have to put some more tax breaks on here in order to get 
an increase in the minimum wage.
  Does the Senator buy that argument?
  Mr. BROWN. No, I don't buy that argument. I came from the House of 
Representatives where I was for 14 years. I saw the minimum wage 
increase basically in 1 day in the House of Representatives a couple of 
weeks ago. We are now on the eighth day of delaying this minimum wage 
vote. The people who oppose this minimum wage don't think minimum wage 
workers should get a fraction of what we get in this body--the salary 
and benefits; they shouldn't even get a fraction of what we get. They 
are still unwilling to raise the minimum wage, just standing pure and 
simple.

  The elections last year showed how many voters feel this Government 
has betrayed the middle class--betrayed them. They wanted to increase 
the minimum wage straightforwardly. We should have been able to pass on 
an up-or-down vote quickly the minimum wage. We can deal with tax 
issues later as this body always does. This should have been done more 
quickly. But there is, as Senator Kennedy said, that hostility toward 
workers, whether it is overtime, whether it is Katrina workers, whether 
it is the refusal to raise the earned income tax credit, or whether it 
is their reluctance over 10 years, their digging-in reluctance against 
raising the minimum wage.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we are here on 
day seven now of this discussion. We had 16 days where we talked about 
the minimum wage another time. And this past week, since we started 
this debate, every Member of Congress has made $3,840 in the last week. 
Mr. President, $3,840 is what a minimum wage worker would make in 4 
months--4 months. Three thousand eight hundred dollars, every Member of 
this Senate.
  Does the Senator find it somewhat troublesome that we are getting 
paid $3,800 in this past week and we are standing here against an 
increase in the minimum wage, from $5.15 to $7.25, over a 2-year 
period? Does the Senator not share with me this extraordinary 
inequality that is so evident here in this body? Does he find it, as do 
I, highly depressing in terms of the actions of this body--not in terms 
of our will to continue fighting, but I was thinking of appropriate 
words and I kept rejecting the ones I was thinking about.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, let's look at the kind of work the minimum 
wage workers are doing. They are hotel workers in Cincinnati. They are 
farm workers in western Ohio. They are people who are working every bit 
as hard, and many would argue much harder, at much more difficult jobs 
in many ways while, as Senator Kennedy said, we have made more in a 
week than they have made in 2 or 3 months. That is what makes for this 
Chamber's inability or unwillingness to pass this minimum wage increase 
more quickly--rather than continued delay, continued delay, continued 
delay, rather than having to do these tax breaks for some of their 
contributors, rather than do a straight up-or-down vote on whether we 
should increase the minimum wage for these workers who have worked hard 
and played by the rules. Don't they deserve a straight up-or-down vote?
  Let's pass the minimum wage. Let's give them a chance, to bring up 
the minimum wage, to make up for the decline in the real value of the 
minimum wage over the last 10 years.
  Again, as Senator Kennedy has said, 6 times in the last 10 years 
while the House and Senate have refused to increase the minimum wage, 6 
different times, these 2 bodies increased our own pay. That is 
shameful. That is reprehensible, when I hear my friends in this body or 
in Government talk about family values. Let's talk about real family 
values. Let's talk about making it possible for families to take care 
of their children, give their children a chance, an opportunity for 
education, an opportunity to find a decent job in the greatest country 
in the world.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just in that time, Ohio addressed the minimum wage, an 
increase in the minimum wage. Could the Senator in the last minute or 
so tell us what you found in traveling around, what was on people's 
minds and why they wanted to vote for it?
  Mr. BROWN. I found overwhelming support for the minimum wage. In 
Ohio, 500,000 people got a raise because of what the voters in Ohio did 
in November, with overwhelming support of the minimum wage. Two hundred 
thousand children live in those 500,000 homes. Those are still families 
who often don't have health insurance, who often have great problems 
finding daycare for their children when they

[[Page S1313]]

are holding their minimum wage jobs. Those are families who are 
struggling to provide the opportunity for their children to go to 
school. We know all that. At least one thing we can do here is increase 
the minimum wage to give those families--not just in Youngstown and in 
Ravenna, and not just in Springfield and in Xenia--a real chance to 
raise their children.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I believe our time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 10 minutes 
reserved for the Republican leader at this time.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Republican leader has given me his time 
unless he should appear on the floor, and so I will do that.
  I am a little disturbed about what I have heard here in the last 
several speeches this morning. The vote we are about to have is on 
whether the minimum wage will increase and there will be tax breaks for 
small businesses.
  When we returned for this session of Congress, we had a number of 
bipartisan meetings, and I was pleased we had bipartisan meetings and 
talked about how we could work together and why we needed to work 
together for America. We talked about minimum wage a little bit, and I 
even saw newspaper articles where the majority leader and others on the 
Democratic side talked about the importance of having tax breaks for 
small business to take care of the impact from the increase in the 
minimum wage. I was encouraged by that. I thought: We are having some 
bipartisanship here. We are having some working together. I am 
encouraged.
  Now, of course, the minimum wage came to the floor and I felt for a 
while it was a bait and switch. After Senator Baucus, the Senator from 
Montana, and Senator Grassley, the Senator from Iowa, worked together 
to come up with this tax package and the tax package was introduced as 
a substitute to the bill, I said: I think we are making progress. I 
think this is going to work. I think it can happen. I think we can work 
together. I think we can get it done.
  Then, of course, we had the cloture vote on the straight minimum wage 
and I thought: What is going on here? Was that to get our attention and 
make us feel good and then rip it away? Rip away the comments that were 
made about the need to help small business? We don't need class warfare 
in this country.
  I keep hearing about a book that was mentioned here, ``The War 
Against The Middle Class.'' Well, I am trying to figure out how the 
minimum wage worker made it into the middle class. I think we are 
talking about the small businessmen, who are being scrunched in from 
all angles, who are in the middle class, who are employing the people, 
sometimes at minimum wage, usually at a minimum skills position, and 
they train them to get better skills, and when they get better skills 
and can do more, they get paid more.
  I always mention the McDonald's in Cheyenne, WY. A guy there starts 
people at minimum wage. Now, if they have to be at minimum wage more 
than about 3 weeks, they are probably not learning the job, probably 
not showing up on time. But the main point is he has had 3 people who 
started at minimum wage who now own 21 McDonald's. So there are 
opportunities out there, but you have to learn and improve to get more 
wages. We can raise the minimum wage and we are going to raise the 
minimum wage. And that will take the bottom step out of the ladder and 
people will be able to step up one more. Then, as we increase prices to 
help pay for that, unless we have the tax breaks, all we did was raise 
prices.
  I hope we do not get into a class warfare. We do not need hostility 
to workers and between parties. It is 2 years until we have an election 
again. We do not need to start campaigns right now. We need to solve 
problems right now.
  We have said one of the problems is the minimum wage, and we are 
going to solve it. They said we debated this six times in the last 10 
years. We have. And every time it was brought up, we needed to do some 
decreases in taxes for the small businesses to take care of the impact 
this will have. That part got ignored every time. Consequently, raising 
of the minimum wage got ignored each time. Hopefully, we will not 
ignore either message and we will do both. The vote we will have this 
morning will be in regard to that.
  Now, I will have to take some time after the vote and talk about some 
of the things that were raised because we cannot discuss them in a 
short period of time. There was talk about overtime taken away. We need 
to have debate on that. There was talk about unemployment. We need to 
have a little debate on it. When we are talking about safety officials 
at mines being cut back, we need to have a talk about that.
  Senator Kennedy, I, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Isakson went to 
West Virginia and looked at the Sago mine and talked to the people 
there. We talked to the mine officials. We talked to union officials. 
We talked to the families. We did a bill in 3 months that changed mine 
safety for the first time in 28 years because we worked together. We 
did not try to find divisions. We tried to find places we could come 
together.
  Now, safety officials were cut back. They were cut back all over the 
Nation. The production of coal went down decidedly. Mines were closed. 
There were less mines. Of course, then the price of coal came back up 
and the mines opened again, and everything lags with the Federal 
Government.
  There are problems we need to solve, but we do not need to make them 
into a war. We need to solve the problems that are involved in these 
instances and keep moving on for America. That is the vote we will take 
later today: a chance to move on for America. We will raise the minimum 
wage, and we are going to help out the small businesses, those people 
with all the risk out there who are employing people and training 
people so that they can continue to hire those people and pay those 
people so we can have the jobs and the training that the small business 
provides.
  I hope that is the track we will go down. I know it will not be 
unanimous on either side, but we can get there if we work together.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The leader has 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when we opened the Senate today, we asked 
that 10 minutes be divided between Senator Kennedy and Senator Reid. I 
yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And would the Chair let me know when there is 1 minute 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In the last few minutes, let me discuss what this issue 
is about. This issue is about John Hosier from Oklahoma who works at 
the Salvation Army for $6 an hour. He provides the family's sole 
paycheck. John and his wife Tina and their two children live on barely 
$200 a week. The family receives Government aid in the form of Medicare 
and food stamps but is still living on the verge of poverty. He said:

       It's hard on a small income . . . if it wasn't for the 
     Salvation Army, I don't know where I'd be.

  This is a vote on John Hosier.
  This is a vote for Elizabeth Lipp of Missouri, a 21-year-old single 
mom. Elizabeth works two jobs, which, prior to a Missouri ballot 
initiative, paid $5.15. On weekdays Elizabeth worked as a housekeeper, 
and on the weekends she worked as a nurse's aide at a convalescent and 
retirement home. She lives with her mother and says:

       Getting by on $5.15 was a struggle. I pay out $75 a week 
     alone for child care.

  Extra money would help her mother with the bills, help pay off the 
car, and help her put aside some savings.
  This is about Peggy Fraley from Wichita, KS, a 60-year-old 
grandmother. Her daughter, Karla, has five children, ages 6 to 17. 
Peggy works as a receptionist. Karla is a food service worker. Both 
women are working $5.15-an-hour jobs. The family is struggling to get 
by. Peggy explains:

       We can barely make it . . . but we've got each other. 
     That's richer sometimes.

  There it is. Those are the people we are fighting for and standing 
with. Those are the people we believe ought to get an increase from 
$5.15 to $7.25.

[[Page S1314]]

You can call that a paycheck. It is just a paycheck. What Democrats are 
fighting for is a just paycheck.
  Finally, we have to understand at the end of this debate, these are 
our fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters, citizens in the United 
States of America. These are men and women of dignity, who take pride 
in the job they do. It is a difficult job, but they still do it. They 
care about their children, they have hopeful dreams for their children.
  We are a Nation of many faiths, but all of the faiths talk about, and 
the Bible teaches the evilness of exploitation of the poor to profit 
the rich. All faiths say that is wrong. They all say that is wrong.
  St. Matthew's Gospel says: Whatever you have done unto the least of 
my brethren, you have done unto me.
  It is time we reach out to these men and women of dignity, these men 
and women--primarily women--who have children. This is a women's issue, 
it is a children's issue, it is a fairness issue. It is an issue of 
basic moral fairness. It is a civil rights issue because so many of 
those men and women are men and women of color. And, most of all, it is 
a fairness issue. In the United States of America, the richest country 
in the world, we are saying to those people who work 40 hours a week, 
52 weeks of the year: You shouldn't have to live in poverty. The other 
side says no. The other side says no.
  We stand for those individuals. It is the right thing to do. It is a 
defining issue of fairness and decency, and it is an indication of what 
we as Americans feel about our fellow citizens. I hope we will get a 
strong vote in favor.
  Just remember, if there is any question in your mind, in the last 
week, the last 7 days, Senators have made $3,800. Every Member of this 
Senate has earned that, and Members are going to vote no? Members are 
going to vote no to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 
2 years? And we have just earned $3,800 in 1 week?
  Opposing the increase in the minimum wage is wrong. It is wrong. Six 
months after an election and 2 years before an election, it is wrong. 
It is wrong every single day of the year.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the distinguished minority manager of this 
bill is easy to get along with. I want the record spread with the fact 
that he is a gentleman. I wish every Member in this Senate was as easy 
to work with as the Senator from Wyoming.
  However, I do have some regard for how we have conducted ourselves on 
this bill in the majority. I have a memory. I know how things have 
happened in the past. No amendments, few amendments, or, if cloture was 
invoked on a bill, those amendments that were germane postcloture did 
not get a vote.
  That is not how we are doing things. They may not have gotten all the 
votes they wanted, but it is interesting to note that the Members 
offering the amendments are not going to vote for the bill anyway.
  We have a procedure. There are amendments germane postcloture, and we 
will vote on as many of those as we can. I prefer a straight minimum 
wage bill. The people of America deserve this raise after 10 years. 
However, the Republicans have said they want these $8 billion in tax 
cuts for business. If that is the only way we can get this bill out of 
here, I am willing to do that for the 13 million Americans who depend 
on minimum wage.
  How could someone in the minority vote against what they asked for? 
We gave them what they asked for. They got all the business tax 
deductions, tax cuts, and then they are going to vote against cloture? 
I don't understand.
  Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 for 13 million Americans--why can't 
we do that--and 5.5 million will have wages raised directly, and the 
other 7.5 million who make near the minimum wage will benefit when the 
lowest wages are lifted.
  As Business Week magazine said a month ago, raising the minimum wage 
lifts the boat for everybody. I don't think Business Week magazine is 
seen as a bastion of liberality.
  Of the 13 million Americans who stand to get a raise, more than 60 
percent are women. For the majority of those women, that is the only 
money they get for them and their families. Almost 40 percent of the 
people who draw minimum wage are people of color. Eighty percent of the 
people who draw minimum wage are adults, many of them senior citizens. 
They are not all kids at McDonald's flipping hamburgers.
  Mr. President, $7.25 may not seem like a lot of money in Washington, 
but it would mean almost $4,500 a year for the Nation's poorest people, 
the poorest working people in America. Do we want to drive those poor 
working people into welfare? The answer is, no.
  Mr. President, $4,500 is a lot of money: 15 months of groceries for a 
family of three; 19 months of utilities; 8 months of rent. It helps 
with childcare and additional things they simply do not have the money 
to splurge on now.
  After 10 years, it is time to stop talking about this issue and give 
the working poor of this country a raise after 10 years. I also advise 
my friends the majority believes this raise in the minimum wage is way 
overdue.
  Everyone should understand, if cloture is not invoked, we are through 
with minimum wage. We are going to go to other matters. The first thing 
we go to is Iraq. We have to start debating Iraq this afternoon. 
Everyone should understand we are not going to come back in a day or 
two or 2 or 3 weeks. We have a lot of things to do. We have to allow 
Medicare to negotiate for lower priced drugs for the people who are 
Medicare recipients. We want to do something about stem cell. We want 
to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We want to pass 
appropriations bills. And we want to pass immigration reform this year. 
Minimum wage is dead this year because of the minority. If they do not 
vote for cloture, it is over with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired. There is still 
2 minutes remaining under the minority's control.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid (for 
     Baucus) substitute amendment No. 100 to Calendar No. 5, H.R. 
     2, providing for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
         Ted Kennedy, Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Inouye, Byron 
           L. Dorgan, Jeff Bingaman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Jack 
           Reed, Barbara Boxer, Daniel K. Akaka, Max Baucus, Patty 
           Murray, Maria Cantwell, Tom Harkin, Robert Menendez, 
           Tom Carper, Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Richard 
           Durbin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 100, offered by the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are they are any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 87, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kennedy

[[Page S1315]]


     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brownback
     Johnson
     Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 87, the nays are 
10. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senate. That was an 
extraordinarily strong vote. It certainly indicates that important 
progress is going to be made on this issue. I hope the sooner the 
better. We do have eight pending amendments that are germane. We are 
hopeful we can consider the DeMint amendment or a vote in relation to 
that. I understand there is a budget point of order on that that might 
be made. We look forward to trying to dispose of other amendments 
through the course of the afternoon.
  For the benefit of the Members, we have 30 hours now on this 
particular proposal. We will have, unless the leaders are able to work 
something out tomorrow, another cloture vote on the underlying 
legislation.
  We are prepared to move ahead on these amendments. I will talk to my 
friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, about them. Of the eight pending 
amendments, I believe six are under the jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee. We will work that out with the members of the Finance 
Committee and inform the Senate as soon as possible thereon.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the manager, how many days have we been on the 
bill? I know this is legislation to increase the minimum wage. It has 
been on the floor for some long while. I understand there is a 30-hour 
postcloture period. I am curious: How long we have been on this bill 
and might we expect, for example, tomorrow to be able to complete 
legislation that would increase the minimum wage after 10 long years?
  Mr. KENNEDY. To answer the Senator, this is the seventh day we have 
been on the minimum wage legislation. During this debate we have had 16 
days where the Senate has addressed an increase in the minimum wage 
where we were unable to get a successful outcome. This is a subject 
that Members can understand quite readily. In one week since we started 
this, we have all received over $3,800 in pay ourselves, but we haven't 
increased the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over a 2-year period. I 
share the Senator's frustration about progress, the time it has taken 
us to get to this point. I hope our leaders can find a pathway that can 
expedite the process. Of the remaining issues, one is a DeMint 
amendment, which we have already addressed, that is adding the minimum 
wage on to all of the States rather than following the minimum wage 
standard. The other is a Chambliss amendment that ought to be on an 
immigration bill that deals with the AgJOBS payment. That is suitable 
for that rather than being on the minimum wage bill. But we are going 
to deal with these issues and do it in an expeditious way and continue 
to move forward.
  Minimum wage workers ought to understand, though, that this was an 
important vote we have taken. I don't wish to be overly hopeful or 
optimistic, but I think help is on its way.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for one more 
question, this vote was encouraging. It gives us an opportunity to take 
another step. It has been a long and tortured trail because this 
subject has been discussed not just this year but in the last session 
and the session before that. This has been a long and tortured trail to 
get an increase in the minimum wage after 10 long years. My hope is 
that this cloture vote will give us an understanding that there is good 
will on all sides and a desire to move forward and get this completed. 
My hope is that we can complete this tomorrow. We have a lot of other 
issues Senator Reid and others have suggested we ought to be moving to.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, over the lunch hour, or shortly after that, 
the Senator from Massachusetts and I will work together to see what we 
can do on the amendments, to see if they can be voted on as 
expeditiously as possible. I, too, feel compelled to address the 
question of the Senator from North Dakota about the number of days we 
counted on this. The minority will always count the days on a bill as 
those days we are allowed to vote. We only voted three out of seven, 
until today when we got the second cloture vote. We will insist we get 
votes on amendments as we proceed through this bill and other bills.
  I am pleased the Senator from Massachusetts is willing to work with 
us to see what we can do on the outstanding amendments.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should be advised that there is an 
order to recess. Further debate would require unanimous consent.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order to 
recess be extended by 2 minutes so I may respond to some of the 
questions that have been raised.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me point out that was an important vote 
we had. It was overwhelming. The Senate voted for cloture 87 to 10. So 
there is not going to be any prolonged, dilatory action here. 
Republicans and Democrats want to get this bill to conclusion. People 
on both sides of the aisle want to make sure that we don't act on this 
legislation in such a way that we wind up costing people jobs or 
costing small business men and women the opportunity to provide jobs.
  We are making progress. The Finance Committee came out with a 
unanimous, bipartisan package which is now going to be a part of what 
we do here. We are going to get through this process in a reasonable 
period of time.
  Our leaders, I am sure, are talking about how exactly we can get to 
conclusion and what we will go to next. But we have only had about 3 
days, as was pointed out, on which we were actually dealing with 
amendments and making progress.
  There have been 76 amendments filed. There are still 26 pending. We 
have disposed of 17 amendments. So we are making progress. But the vote 
that just took place did block some Members who had legitimate 
amendments which are relevant, although they are not germane 
postcloture, and there are a few amendments that are germane 
postcloture. So I assume we will get to a conclusion after some of 
those amendments are considered, and we will complete this legislation 
before this week is out and then we can move on to the next issue which 
is of concern to everybody, and that is the Iraq resolution.
  I wanted the Record to reflect we are making progress and that there 
is not an action out of the ordinary to delay this bill. We have been 
through this before, and actually we are going to complete action in 
what is probably about a normal period of time for this type of 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________