Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I again thank the Senators from California and Washington for illustrating in very powerful terms what this issue is all about. It is about working women and families. With all respect to my friend from Oklahoma, when we had an increase in the minimum wage a few years ago, the Republicans fought it. They said that it would harm the economy and adversely impact small business. In the measure I have introduced we have tried to provide some relief for small businesses and we have paid for it. Now we can't do that because we have some kind of offsets. Therefore, we can't do it. The fact is, the Republicans are opposed to any increase in the minimum wage. That is the fact. They have been opposed to it even at a time of extraordinary prosperity. This minimum wage affects real people in a very important way, and there is no group in our society it affects more powerfully than women and children. They are the great majority of the earners of the minimum wage, and increasingly so. These days parents are spending less and less time with their families. In the last 10 years, parents were able to spend 22 hours a week less with their families. Read the Family and Work Institute's report of interviews with small children who are in minimum-wage families. They are universal in what they say. They all say: We wish our mother--or our father--would be less fatigued. We wish they had more time to spend with us. We are tired of seeing our parents come home exhausted when they are working one or two minimum-wage jobs. That is what this is about. It is about the men and women at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Are they real? Of course they are real. I have read the stories. We know who they are. They are out there today, this morning, as teacher's aides in our schools. These teacher's aides are working with young children, our future, and yet they don't earn enough to make ends meet. They are there in the day-care centers. We know that day-care center workers are often at the bottom of the pay scale, earning the minimum wage. As you can see from this graph the purchasing power of the minimum wage has declined since the last increase. As their wages lose purchasing power, turnover in low paying jobs like child care attendants and those who are working in nursing homes, increases. When people are forced to leave these jobs, there is a deterioration in quality of the service day care centers and nursing homes can offer. This is about the most important element of our society. It is about fairness. It is about work. We hear all of these speeches on the other side of the aisle about the importance of work. We are honoring work. We are talking about men and women with dignity who have a sense of pride in what they do and are trying to do better and are trying to look out after their families. They are being given the back of the hand by the Republicans. Their proposal is a sham. It is a raw deal for these workers. On the one hand, they are dribbling out an increase in the minimum wage; on the other hand, they are taking away overtime for 73 million Americans, and in the meantime, they are giving tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals in our society. That is a sham. Beyond that, they say the minimum wage, if we are even fortunate enough to get it to pass the Senate, will never go to the President because the Republican leadership has made a commitment to whoever it might be that it will never go there. That is what we are up against.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. Thirty seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has raised an enormously important point. Americans who are working in poverty, which is at the highest level in 20 years, are working longer and harder than ever. The men work 50 hours a week or more on average and the women work an average of 3 weeks more a year. They have less time--22 hours less--to spend with their children than they did 10 years ago. That is why this is a children's issue, as the Senator has pointed out. On the issue the difference between the Republican and the Democratic proposals, the Republicans say that their proposal makes some difference for those individuals who are going to get an increase in the minimum wage over 3 years. This is a raw deal for them. On the one hand, they give them an increase in the minimum wage, and on the other hand they take back the overtime for 73 million Americans. It is a cynical sham, and it is a cynical sham because the majority leader has said even if it passes, it will never go out of this Chamber. That is the attitude toward hard- working men and women who are trying to play by the rules and get along at a time when they have the lowest purchasing power in the history of the minimum wage and we have the most extraordinary prosperity. And then they insult these workers even further by adding a $75 billion tax break over 10 years. And then we just heard about the difficulty we are having in conference about $1 billion on education because they say we cannot afford to do things, but the same side is suggesting a $75 billion tax break. Where are they getting their money? So it is a cynical play. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes. In a few moments, we will be voting on the minimum wage issue that is before the Senate. I want to review what the record has been over the last 2 years. In September of 1998, we brought up the minimum wage issue, and were unable to bring that to a vote on the basis of the merits. The Republican leadership said no. In March of 1999, we tried to bring up this issue. Again, we were denied an opportunity to vote on it. In April of 1999, we brought it up again as an amendment on Y2K. We were denied an opportunity to have a full debate. In July of 1999, we brought it up again, and again we were turned down. Now we have the minimum wage legislation before us, and in a cynical move, the Republican leadership said: Even if you get the passage of the minimum wage, it ``ain't'' going to go any further; the President isn't going to see it; it is going to end. It is a sham. Their effort is basically a sham. That is the position in which we find ourselves today. We know Americans are working longer and harder. The working poor are working longer and harder than at any time in the history of our country. We know that over the last 10 years, women are working 3 weeks longer a year in order to earn the minimum wage and men are averaging 50 hours a week. These are some of the hardest working men and women in the country. At the height of the minimum wage in the late 1960s, it had the purchasing power that $7.49 would have today. If we are not able to raise the minimum wage this year and next, its value will be at an all- time low--in a time of extraordinary prosperity in this country. That is fundamentally wrong. A vote for the Republican amendment will not help working families. It is, in fact, an insult to low-wage workers. It robs them of over $1,200 as compared to the Democratic proposal, and it drastically undermines the overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act which has been the law for over 60 years. The Republican proposal jeopardizes the overtime pay of 73 million Americans. The Republicans did not water down their own pay increase of $4,600. They are now watering down the increase in the minimum wage, and they are watering down overtime. On the one hand, they are giving an inadequate increase in the minimum wage and taking it back by cutting back on overtime. That is a sham. That is a cynical attempt to try to win support for working families from those who are trying to do justice for those individuals. We can ask, What difference does an increase in the minimum wage make? Cathi Zeman, 52 years old, works at a Rite Aid in Canseburg, PA. She earns $5.68 an hour. She is the primary earner in the family because her husband has a heart condition and is only able to work sporadically. What difference would an increase in the minimum wage mean to Cathi and her family? It would cover 6 months of utility bills for Cathi's family. Kimberly Frazier, a full-time child care aide from Philadelphia testified her pay of $5.20 an hour barely covers her rent, utilities, and clothes for her children. Our proposal would mean over 4 months of groceries for Kimberly and her kids. The stories of these families remind us that it is long past time to raise the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. We cannot delay it. We cannot stretch it out. We cannot use it to cut overtime. And we cannot use it as an excuse to give bloated tax breaks to the rich. Members of Congress did not blink in giving themselves a $4,600 pay raise. Yet they deny a modest increase for those workers at the bottom of the economic ladder. I do not know how Members who voted for their own pay increase but I do not know how Members who vote against our minimum wage proposal will be able to face their constituents and explain their actions. It is hypocritical and irresponsible to deny a fair pay raise to the country's lowest paid workers. Above all, raising the minimum wage $1 over 2 years and protecting overtime pay is about fairness and dignity. It is about fairness and dignity for men and women who are working 50 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year trying to provide for their children and their families. This is a women's issue because a great majority of the minimum-wage workers are women. It is a children's issue because the majority of these women have children. It is a civil rights issue because the majority of individuals who make the minimum wage are men and women of color. And it is a fairness issue. At a time of extraordinary prosperity this country ought to be willing to grant an increase to the hardest working Americans in the nation--the day-care workers, the teachers aides. They deserve this increase. Our amendment will provide it, and the Republican amendment will not.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The Senator from Illinois, the Senator from California, and I know the Senator from Washington as well, had hoped--and I believe I can speak for our Democratic leader--this would be the No. 1 appropriation and not the last one. If we had this as the No. 1 appropriation on the issue of education, we would not have these little statements we have heard this morning. But it is the last one. That is not by accident; that is by choice of the Republican leadership. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Good. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have? I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to respond, we have a need for 2 million teachers. We have scarce Federal resources. If the States or local communities want to do whatever the Senator from New Mexico says, all well and good. But we are talking about scarce Federal resources that are targeted in ways that have been proven effective in enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment. I am again surprised. The Republicans were taking credit for this last year. I was in the negotiations. Mr. Goodling and Mr. Gingrich--as we were waiting to find out whether the powers that be, the Speaker, was going to endorse this, when we were waiting and having negotiations--went out and announced it and took credit for it. They took credit for this proposal of the President. I find it a little difficult to understand this kind of frustration that is being demonstrated here. But we will come back to this and Senator Murray can address these issues at a later time. I certainly hope the President will not flinch in his commitment to getting smaller class sizes and better trained teachers and after school programs. That is what this President has been fighting for. I hope he will not yield at this time in these final negotiations, after we have only had four appropriations that have met the deadline. Before we get all excited about these negotiations, if our appropriators had completed this work in time, we would not be here.

Mr. KENNEDY. On your time, yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania's comments with great interest. I will mention very briefly in defense of the administration, although they can make the case quite well for themselves that if the Appropriations Committee had finished their business on time we would not be in this particular dilemma. Only four appropriations bills were actually completed on time for the fiscal year. So with all respect to our friend on the other side, if the appropriators had placed, particularly the HEW appropriations, first rather than last, I do not think we would be having these kinds of problems in the areas of negotiation between the President and the Congress. Second, the basic program which the President has been fighting for in this negotiation is almost identical to what the Republicans supported last year. With all respect to the comments we have just heard, the fact is if the classes reach the goals, the 15 percent set- aside for funding for smaller class sizes can be used to enhance the teacher training. If the school had already achieved the lower class size of 18, it would be used for special needs or other kinds of professional purposes. So it is difficult for me to understand the frustration of the Senator from Pennsylvania when the Republican leaders all effectively endorse what the President talked about last year. If their position is not sustained, there are going to be 30,000 teachers who are teaching in first, second, and third grades who are going to get pink slips. I don't think the problem in education is having fewer schoolteachers teach in the early grades but to have more. I want to make clear I am not a part of those negotiations this year, but I was last year. I know what the particular issue is. With all respect to those who are watching C-SPAN II, I want them to know the President is fighting for smaller class sizes as well as for better trained teachers. We have seen Senator Murray make that presentation and make it effectively time and again. I think it is something that parents support, teachers understand, and children have benefited from. No one makes that case more eloquently than the Senator from the State of Washington. But I certainly hope the President will continue that commitment. We have scarce Federal resources. They are targeted in areas of particular need. That is the purpose of these negotiations. I hope we can conclude a successful negotiation.

Mr. KENNEDY. OK. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Just as a matter of inquiry, were taken out of the time of the debate. Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I asked how much time the Senator from Pennsylvania used?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask we extend the time. How much time did the Senator from Pennsylvania expend?

Mr. KENNEDY. I wanted to inquire of the desk what the Senate business was supposed to be? I was under the impression we were supposed to be, at 9:30, on the minimum wage.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question? Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this list represents virtually all of the children's protection groups--those groups that have been most identified with protecting women's economic and political rights, those groups that have been looking after workers' interests, and small business groups as well. Virtually every one of them are opposed to the underlying legislation. As I mentioned in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would like to hear those who are in favor of it point out one single group representing children, workers, women, or consumers who are for this bill. Just bring those names to us. Let's debate it. But we have none, zero. It comes back to what we ought to be asking ourselves when we have this kind of a situation. Isn't it worthwhile that we find out who the winners are and who the losers are? If common sense is any indication, we will try to make a case that in justifies these comments. Virtually every one of the groups representing hard-working Americans--the men and women who work hard and play by the rules; and, in many instances, women who have been discriminated against for a wide variety of reasons and issues; children's groups who understand the importance of making sure that children's interests and their financial security will be protected--are universally opposed and say ``no'' to the bill. But we have others. The credit card companies say yes. So it is interesting, as we are coming into the final hours of this session, we have another one of those situations where the Republican leadership is putting out on the floor of the U.S. Senate a bill the special interests--in this case, the credit card companies--are strongly in favor of, but threatens the economic interests of women and working people and children. We have little time this afternoon to debate a minimum wage, which we have been virtually prohibited from doing before the Senate over the period of the last year. We are not even going to have an opportunity to debate something that could protect consumers, women, children, and workers on a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is being put off. But we have time to debate this issue. Why? Because the credit card companies have a very important and direct interest in the outcome of this particular legislation. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to run through some of these charts that show, I think, very effectively, what this case is all about. This chart shows that the U.S. median family income is $42,769 this year. Now these are constant dollars. If we look over at what the income was for those who went into bankruptcy, in 1981, 1991, 1995, and 1997, you find out there has been a gradual decline--$23,000, $18,000, $17,000, and in 1997 it was somewhat below what it was in 1995. We have the greatest economic boom in the history of this country, with the lowest unemployment and rates of inflation. We saw an increase in the numbers of bankruptcies. But who are these people who are filing for bankruptcy? It is actually those in the lower incomes. That is who we are affecting with legislation that is dealing with bankruptcy. Who are these people down here in 1997? Let's look back in 1981. The red indicates joint filings. The yellow indicates men filing. The blue is for women filing. Going back to 1981, we find the greatest number of filings for bankruptcy were joint filings, with some single men and some single women. Look what happens in 1991. Joint still goes up, and there are increasing numbers of women and of men. In 1999, those at the top are women. They are at the bottom in 1981 and at the top in 1999. Do you see the very dramatic increase in the number of women. Why is that so? The reason that is so is women are being denied alimony and child support. That is why it is so. That is why it is so, Mr. President. Every indicator demonstrates that is why it is so. We are passing a major piece of legislation to protect not those who are being adversely impacted by these economic forces, but to protect the credit card industry. It is women who are facing challenges because of alimony and in terms of child support. If you wanted to do something about this line here, you would do more to make sure the deadbeat dads are going to pay up as they should in terms of alimony and child support. You would see this number go down dramatically. Nonetheless, no, no, we are not going to deal with that issue. We have this other kind of formula that is going to hurt these people--not protect them so they might have a second opportunity. The fact is, the number of people who are working who go into bankruptcy is virtually identical to those who are working generally anyway. Isn't that interesting? The fact is, these are not men and women who are dogging it, these are men and women who are out trying to make it. Nonetheless, are we considering a piece of legislation that is going to help them get back on their feet a second time and perhaps pay off their debt? No, no; we are thinking about the credit card companies and looking out after their interests. So we see that the great expansion and explosion in the number of people who are going into bankruptcy are primarily women. Now it is interesting that bankrupt debtors are reporting job problems. Sixty- seven percent of those who are going into bankruptcy are reporting job problems, a direct result of downsizing, direct result of merging, the direct result of being able to go down to Wall Street and cut back in the total number of employees and see a bang in that stock going right up. Extraordinary economic growth and expansion--all of which are very fine and good--doesn't mean that you have to come down with a hammer on workers who, through no fault of their own, are being merged out and are having difficulty in finding jobs to try to meet their responsibilities, especially women. This indicates what has been happening with regard to people who have been going into bankruptcy. More than 67 percent of them are showing that it is basically and fundamentally an issue in terms of their employment. These other colors indicate what those particular matters might be in terms of downsizing and the rest. We have some idea now. We have the numbers I mentioned earlier. We have the growth in the number of men and women who are separated, become divorced, and the economic implications and burdens women are faced with in terms of credit. We find that. Now let's look to see if there are other indicators. Yes, there is another very important indicator. That is the fact that we are seeing the total number of uninsured in our society growing at a rate of over a million a year. Make no mistake about it, that is going to increase and escalate. We are not doing anything about it. That is going to increase and escalate. Isn't it interesting that health care-related problems driving individuals into bankruptcy are the No. 1 reason besides job related reasons. Individuals being dropped from the health care system are individuals at the lower end of the economic ladder who don't have the protections and don't have the health insurance in the first place. We all know what is happening out in the job market with the increasing number of temps. So you do not have pensions and you do not have health insurance. Here we have the individuals who are losing out and falling further behind--women on credit, women on alimony, and women with challenges they have in terms of payments. Then you have the problems with downsizing. Now we have one of the other major issues reflected in the bankruptcies that are taking place all across this country. We know what is happening across the country in terms of many of the major companies and corporations that had good health care protection for retirees. Those numbers are going down in terms of coverage. We know the costs and what is happening in terms of prescription drugs. They are going up and escalating dramatically. When we passed Medicare in 1964, the private sector didn't have prescription drugs, so Medicare didn't have it. Now 90 percent of those policies have it, but we can't even get that issue up before the Senate to debate it. We haven't got the chance to debate whether we ought to have prescription drugs. We don't get a chance to debate whether we ought to try to accept the House bill that provides protection for consumers from the arbitrary rulings of accountants in health maintenance organizations. No, we can't deal with any of that. Let's just look out after the credit card industry. They are the ones who need protection--not the men and women who have lost their health care. No, sir; we don't have to worry about them--not the men and women who have been downsized. No, sir; we don't have to worry about them; and not women. Alimony and child care support--let's not worry about them. Let's worry about the good old credit card industry. Let's see what we have to worry about with them. What do you know? Here is a facsimile of a letter, Mr. President, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, raising the minimum wage is critical to preventing the economic free fall that often leads to bankruptcy. Many of us have sponsored the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1999 to begin to right that wrong. Amending the bankruptcy bill to increase the minimum wage will help many of the people this so-called bankruptcy ``reform'' is likely to hurt--low income families, minorities and women. For many low income workers, the struggle to make ends meet is too difficult, and they find themselves facing bankruptcy. Raising the minimum wage will help many of these hardworking individuals and families recover from the financial crises that drove them into bankruptcy. For nearly two-thirds of the families that file for bankruptcy, a job crisis led to their downfall. Many of those families faced a job loss. A Bureau of Labor Statistics study reported that only about a quarter of displaced workers had found a new job at the same or better pay as the job they lost. A third of displaced workers were still looking for work. Nearly half of the displaced workers had to settle for work at much lower salaries--an average 20% pay cut for those lucky enough to find full time jobs, and a much steeper cut for those who took part- time work. Large numbers of women who will suffer under this bill will benefit from a minimum wage increase. Divorced women are four times more likely to file for bankruptcy than married women or single men. Often, they are forced into bankruptcy because they are owed child support or alimony. Divorced women trying to raise children face a daunting challenge to provide for their families. This bill will make it harder to meet that challenge. But raising the minimum wage will help almost seven million women, many of them struggling to maintain their families. African American and Hispanic families disproportionately face the threat of bankruptcy and the repercussions of a low minimum wage. They are six times more likely than other Americans to seek bankruptcy protection, and they will be disproportionately harmed by this bankruptcy bill. But they also comprise one-third of those who will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. This amendment will help more African American and Hispanic families meet their families' needs. Low income families struggling to meet their obligations often find themselves facing bankruptcy. Some argue that the rise in bankruptcy filings is due to a lack of responsibility. But too often the problem is a matter of basic household economics. Families going into bankruptcy have less income than most Americans. A raise in the minimum wage will give them the economic boost they need to avoid bankruptcy. Our proposal will give these low income wage earners the pay raise they need and deserve to care more effectively for their families--to buy the food and clothing, and health care they need, without going into debt. Recently, members of Congress voted to raise their own pay by $4,600--but not the pay of minimum wage workers. Republican Senators don't blink about giving themselves an increase. How can they possibly deny a fair increase for minimum wage workers? In fact, the Republican leadership has gone to extraordinary lengths to block action by Congress on a pay raise for the hard-working Americans who work at the minimum wage. But it is time--long past time--to raise the minimum wage. Too many hard-working Americans struggling to keep their families afloat and their dignity intact can't make enough in a 40 hour week to lift their families out of poverty--and that's wrong. The percentage of poor who are full-time year-round workers was 12.6% in 1998--higher than any time in the last 20 years, according to a new report from the Census Bureau. Our minimum wage amendment is a modest proposal-- a one dollar increase in two installments--50 cents next January, and 50 cents the following year. Over 11 million American workers will benefit. At $6.15 an hour, working full-time, a minimum wage worker would earn $12,800 a year under this amendment--an increase of over $2,000 a year. That additional $2,000 will pay for seven months of groceries to feed the average family. It will pay the rent for five months. It will pay for almost ten months of utilities. It will cover a year and a half of tuition and fees at a two-year college, and provide greater opportunities for those struggling at the minimum wage to obtain the skills needed to obtain better jobs. The national economy is the strongest in a generation, with the lowest unemployment rate in three decades. Under the leadership of President Clinton, our economy is strong. Enterprise and entrepreneurship are flourishing--generating unprecedented economic growth, with impressive efficiencies and significant job creation. The stock market has soared. Inflation is low, and interest rates are low. We are witnessing the strongest peace-time growth in our history. The country as a whole is enjoying an unprecedented period of growth and prosperity. But for millions of Americans it is someone else's prosperity. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, a person earning the minimum wage would earn only $10,700--almost $3,200 below the poverty guidelines for a family of three. Each day we fail to raise the minimum wage, families across the country continue to fall farther behind. One fact says it all--the minimum wage would have to be $7.49 an hour today, instead of the current level of $5.15, to have the same purchasing power it had in 1968. That disparity shows how far we have fallen short in the past generation in guaranteeing that low income workers receive their fair share of the nation's prosperity. The Republican proposal to raise the minimum wage by one dollar over three years beginning on March 1, 2000, is a cruel hoax on the lowest paid American workers. Our Democratic plan to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents on January 1, 2000 and another 50 cents on January 1, 2001, would put almost $1,200 more than the Republican proposal into the hands of the hard-working women and men who work at the minimum wage. The Republican proposal is an insult to low wage workers. In addition to robbing workers of over $1,200, it effectively repeals the overtime pay law that has guaranteed time-and-a-half overtime pay for over 60 years. The so-called ``bonus'' provision of the Republican proposal jeopardizes the overtime pay of 73 million Americans by eliminating the requirement that bonuses, commissions, and other similar forms of compensation be included in a worker's regular pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. As the United States Supreme Court said in interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act, exclusion of bonuses from overtime pay will ``nullify all the purposes for which the [Act] was created.'' The Republican proposal is just one more part of an ongoing assault on low wage workers that includes balancing the budget on the backs of the working poor; cutting workers' pay through the compensatory time bill; providing pensions for the wealthy but not for working families; blocking workers' right to organize; and undermining worker safety and health. Shame on those who want to lavish over $75 billion in tax breaks on business, while cutting this modest pay raise for low income workers. Republicans are more interested in providing tax breaks for the rich than in fairly compensating minimum wage workers. When Congress has just voted to raise its own pay, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to deny fair pay for the country's lowest paid workers. As the Washington Post said last week: ``The minimum wage should be increased, and the increase should not become a political football. . . . The price of a bill to help the working poor ought not be an indiscriminate tax cut for those at the very top of the economic mountain.'' Our legislation does contain a fiscally responsible package of small business tax provisions which would cost approximately $11.5 billion over the next five years. Those provisions have been designed to provide financial assistance to the small businesses which will be paying the higher minimum wage to their employees. The cost of these tax benefits is fully paid for. Unlike the Republican proposals, this bill will not draw down the surplus. It will not jeopardize our ability to use the surplus to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for the future. Our tax proposal contains provisions which will benefit both employers and employees. It provides a tax credit for worksite child care facilities, a tax credit to encourage small businesses to offer employee pensions, and a tax credit for companies that provide high tech training to their employees. It also encourages the creation of new jobs for those who are currently outside the workforce by extending the work opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit, and by establishing tax incentives for ``new market'' community development. In addition, our package accelerates the deductibility of health insurance premiums for self-employed workers. It excludes educational benefits provided for employees' children from taxation, and it helps workers save for their retirement. These are the types of tax provisions that Congress should be enacting. They are tax cuts which will benefit a broad spectrum of businesses and workers and strengthen the economy. They are not tax breaks which only further enrich an already privileged few. This debate should be about the real financial needs of low income workers and small businesses. A modest increase in the minimum wage should not be held hostage to the desire for extravagant new tax breaks for those who are already the most economically privileged. It makes sense to provide fiscally responsible tax assistance to small businesses and their employees. All the tax cuts we are proposing are fully paid for and carefully targeted to meet genuine needs. It is appropriate to enact them as part of our legislation to raise the minimum wage. Finally, raising the minimum wage is far more than a labor issue. Raising the minimum wage is a women's issue. Almost 60 percent of minimum wage workers are women. 7 million women across the nation-- 12.6% of all working women--would benefit from this increase. Raising the minimum wage is a children's issue. Over two million married couples and almost a million mothers would receive a pay raise as a result of our increase. Eighty-five percent of these single mothers have total household incomes below $25,000 a year. Raising the minimum wage is a civil rights issue. Over two million Hispanic workers and almost as many African American workers will receive a raise. Together, they make up one-third of those who will benefit from the increase. Raising the minimum wage is a family issue. The average minimum wage worker brings home half the family earnings. Half the benefits of our one dollar increase will go to households earning less than $25,000 a year. Parents need this raise so they can provide their children with food, clothes, and a decent place to live. Some of our colleagues who oppose the minimum wage still believe the dire ``sky is falling'' predictions of economic disaster that were raised before we voted to raise the minimum wage in 1996. None of those predictions came true. Since the last increase enacted by Congress, the economy has created new jobs at a rate of over 235,000 a month. Job creation in the sectors most affected by the minimum wage is up too-- with almost 1.2 million new jobs in the retail sector, and 400,000 new jobs in restaurants. Employment is up--and the unemployment rate is down--among teenagers, African Americans, Hispanics, and women. As Business Week magazine has stated, [H]igher minimum wages are supposed to lead to fewer jobs. Not today. In a fast-growth, low-inflation economy, minimum wages raise income, not unemployment. . . . A higher minimum wage can be an engine for upward mobility. When employees become more valuable, employers tend to boost training and install equipment to make them more productive. Higher wages at the bottom often lead to better education for both workers and their children. . . . It is it time to set aside old assumptions about the minimum wage. It is time to raise the federal minimum wage. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. I urge my colleagues to join me in raising the minimum wage. Amendment No. 2751 (Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the Federal minimum wage)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2751.

Mr. KENNEDY. Please.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could answer the Senator, I think we do actually have some additional speakers. They can either do it now or at some other appropriate time after all the time has expired.