Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have had a good debate and discussion on this issue during the course of the morning. The opposition to an increase in the minimum wage raised a number of issues, which we anticipated and responded to. First of all, they say that there is going to be an increasing problem in terms of unemployment. We have demonstrated that we have the lowest unemployment since World War II. They argue that it is going to add to the problems of inflation. We have demonstrated that we have the lowest rates of inflation, and we have demonstrated a very substantial growth in terms of small business interests. I want to point out, since our friends, Senator Hatch and Senator Enzi, talked about the restaurant industry, that they have been prime opponents of any increase for the hardest working Americans, those at the lowest end of the economic ladder. I point out that in this industry in 1996, the average restaurant CEO grew in income by 8.6 percent. Their average bonus increased 13 percent. Their average value of stock options exploded by over 100 percent. Their average total compensation grew by 6 percent. These are some of the highest paid CEOs in this country who are making that high salary on the basis of low-wage workers. I might also add that of the 100 top CEOs in the restaurant industry, there is not one single woman--not one single woman. Mr. President, before we take all of the arguments by my friend from Utah where we have seen since 1996 a growth and an increase of 59,000 jobs--that was after the increase of the minimum wage in 1996 in October, and September 1997--one of the lowest unemployment rates in this country, I have a list of the statements that have been made by my friend from Oklahoma that he gave in the last debate: I don't think that they should do it in my State because they are going to put people out of work. That was said in 1996. Senator Hatch virtually said the same thing in 1996. The facts demonstrate to the contrary. Finally, Mr. President, I want to point this out. We have seen here what you can't get away from: that is, the decline in the purchasing power for low-income Americans. That is a fact. It is lower now than it has been for a period of 30 years. Republicans signed onto this program. President Eisenhower, President Nixon, President Bush--all Republicans--supported an increase in the minimum wage. Yet we hear from our Republican leadership that we can't possibly do it because it is going to destroy America. Mr. President, it is important to understand why this issue is so important to the religious community. We have 170 organizations, the principal leaders in the religious community, supporting an increase in the minimum wage because they understand it, whether it is the American Friends, Catholic Charities, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Church, the Lutheran Church, the American Council of Churches, U.S. Catholic Bishops, United States Church of Christ--they understand it. It is a moral issue for them--believing in the dignity of the individual. They ought to be able to have a decent living, that they are working in America to provide for their children. That is what the issue is. You can give us all the charts you want made up by the restaurant industry to distort what is really being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is an issue involving women--sixty percent of the recipients are women. It is an issue involving children--the neediest and the poorest children in this country who are the sons and daughters of those minimum-wage workers. This is a civil rights issue--it is paying people the entry wage, a livable wage for those individuals who come from different backgrounds and tradition, and also the minorities in our country. This is basically the moral issue of our time--and when we have been at our best, we have responded to it, Republicans and Democrats alike. It is a fundamental issue that has been stated by my colleagues-- Senators Wellstone, Harkin, Durbin, and others who have spoken on it. To sum up, it is whether the United States of America, with the most extraordinary economic prosperity in the history of our Nation, is going to say that our fellow citizens who work hard and who have children ought to have a livable wage. That is what the issue is about. The Republican leadership is saying no to those working families. We hope that we are going to have some support from the other side of the aisle because we believe that there are those who understand the importance of this issue to working families. There is no issue before this U.S. Senate that involves fairness and decency and equity like an increase in the minimum wage. This is it. Now is the time. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Iowa.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have how much time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this chart here says it: ``The minimum wage is not a livable wage.'' We are talking about a livable wage here in the United States of America. These are the average figures for a family. The monthly minimum wage budget includes what is necessary for a family of three. Food on the table, $348; housing, $582; transportation, $145; and what remains is $131. That does not include child care, where the national average in terms of one child would be $333 or health care where the average is $49 or clothing where the average is $63, which comes to $445. You have to squeeze three items, $445, into the remaining of $131. The question is, how many times is a parent going to serve peanut butter to a child in order to save the $10, $15 or $20 so they can look after health care needs? How many times are they not going to pay their utilities in order to be able to look after a child? This is what we are talking about--hard-working Americans who deserve a living wage. This issue is the same as the last 70 years when we have debated it in the Senate. But we have come together in decency and fairness at important times for working Americans. Finally, Mr. President, just last year we had an increase in our own minimum wage. Members of this body got $3,100. That is $1.50 an hour. That is the increase every Member of this Senate received--$1.50 an hour in 1 year. We are looking at child care workers, health care workers, teacher's aides getting 50 cents next year and 50 cents the following year. If it was fair enough for the Members of the Senate, it ought to be fair enough for those hard-working Americans who are trying to provide for their families. That is the issue--fundamental fairness to working Americans. Hopefully, we will be successful. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes. Mr. President, I will briefly review the bidding about where we are with regard to the minimum wage. Since the end of World War II, the minimum wage has increased seven different times. President Eisenhower signed a bill for an increase of the minimum wage. President Kennedy did as well, as did President Johnson. President Nixon supported an increase in the minimum wage. President Carter supported an increase in the minimum wage. President Bush supported an increase, and President Clinton has supported it as well. In the postwar period, if we look at where the economy went in the immediate 20 years after World War II, the economy grew across the board. The percent of increase for those at the lower income level rose just as well as those at the upper level. There was very, very little disparity. If you look at the difference quintiles, from the period of the postwar--1945 really up to about 1970--there was virtual growth together. During this period of time, we found that Republicans and Democrats alike supported the increase in the minimum wage on a very basic and fundamental principle; that is, if Americans are going to work, they ought to be able to have a livable wage--they should not be in poverty. Men and women who want to work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year and play by the rules ought to have a livable wage. That concept has been supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. All we are asking today is whether we are going to continue that basic, fundamental vote of fairness and justice in our country. That is the issue. It is as plain and simple as that. There are reasonable questions that we have to ask ourselves. The first is, What is going to be the impact on the state of our economy? We have the greatest economic growth and price stability in the history of the Nation. We have seen untold fortunes made during the period of the last 6 years, but not for those at the lower end of the economic ladder, not for those who are the minimum-wage workers. Their actual purchasing power has been reduced. It is surprising, most Americans think, that everyone has not moved up together. Many have moved up the economic ladder, but not those at the lower part of the economic ladder. All we are trying to do is to say to those hard-working Americans at a time when we have record unemployment, the lowest inflation that we have had at any time (except one of the seven times where we raised the minimum wage in the postwar period)--the lowest rate of inflation-- that, given our economic situation, we can make sure and we can afford for those working Americans a livable wage for themselves and for the members of their family. That is the very simple issue. It is fair to look at what has happened with the last increases in the minimum wage to see what the impact has been of those increases on the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation. We find, as I have demonstrated and put in the Record repeatedly, and will not take the time unless challenged on those issues here today, that effectively we have seen virtually no adverse impact in terms of our economy since the last two increases--absolutely none. The economy is stronger, and stronger than ever. We saw in 1997 more than 1,200,000 jobs created in the small business industry. We have heard from the restaurant association that since the last increase in the minimum wage their employment has grown by 240,000 jobs. They have not been disadvantaged. If you are looking at a growth industry, according to the Labor Department, it is in the restaurant industry. Mr. President, you can see what I have just stated reflected on this chart. This chart reflects clearly the fact that in constant dollars the minimum wage now is at one of its lower levels. Over the period from the mid 1950s, all the way through the mid-1980s, a 30-year period where we have Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, we have minimum wage and purchasing power that would be even above what this proposal is that is offered today: 50 cents next year, 50 cents the following year. Even if we have those two increases, we will still be below the 30-year average under Republicans and Democrats. That is all. We are not trying to say we are going to the highest level that we have ever had, even though we have the best economy. All we are saying is let us put them in the realm of the 30-year period for these working families in America. A great deal is said around here about the importance of work. These are working families trying to provide for their children. Who are these workers? These workers are child care workers and attendants. Beatrice Stanford of Wilmington, DE, is a low-wage grandmother who has worked at the YMCA Child Care Center for 4 years, earns $5.75 an hour, and is the sole supporter for her teenage son and daughter and two grandchildren. Beatrice's children have worked from time to time, but she now calls that her biggest mistake. Her daughter fell behind in school because of all the hours she was putting in at work. She needed summer school, but she couldn't afford the $300 for the course. Instead, she had to do a correspondence course that cost $164. She made up the course but lost a year. Beatrice finds it a struggle just to pay the rent. She can't afford a car, so she takes a bus to work and catches a ride to the supermarket. These are child care workers--the faces of those who are working for the minimum wage. Beatrice Stanford, a grandmother trying to provide for her children and not being able to make ends meet. Mr. President, there are other workers like Renda DeJohnette who provides home health care in Los Angeles. Child care workers, home health care workers, teachers' aides--these are all the people who make up the minimum wage. Renda DeJohnette provides home health care. Renda works in a county program to help senior citizens and the disabled to remain in their homes and avoid institutionalization. Renda is a single mother with two teenage children. She earns $5.75 an hour washing clothes, preparing meals, cleaning houses and finds it hard to make ends meet. A low minimum wage increase would allow her to put food on the table and pay all of her bills. The list goes on. There is Marcus Reynolds of Lynn, MA. To understand the minimum wage from both sides of the paycheck, for 20 years he earned the minimum wage cleaning offices, making beds in hotels, stocking shelves, and lifting heavy packages in stores. Often he worked two jobs, sometimes three. He says, ``No matter how many jobs I worked, how little time I slept, the minimum wage was not enough to make ends meet. Even when I was basically just working and sleeping, providing for food and rent and transportation was more than a challenge. It was often a struggle.'' Now he owns a very small sandwich shop. He pays his entry-level workers $6 an hour. He says, ``I can't afford to pay them less.'' He respects them as workers and as people, and as he puts it, ``What kind of family value is it to pay someone supporting a family a wage that is below poverty?'' Mr. President, these are the people we are talking about. We are talking about teacher's aides who are working with our children. We are talking about child care helpers. We see the turnover that is taking place in the Head Start Program, and we are all concerned about that because we know the importance of consistency of care in terms of looking after our children. One of the principal reasons for this turnover is that we are paying the child care assistants in these kinds of settings the minimum wage, and they just cannot make ends meet. We are talking about those health workers who are working with our parents to try to keep them at home, to help and assist them so they are not institutionalized. They are the helpers and assistants in the nursing homes looking after our parents. They are the people who take care of the buildings which house America's corporations, working long, hard hours at night. When we asked minimum wage workers what the impact was when they saw an increase in the minimum wage last time, the answer that so many of them gave was amazing: ``You know, Senator, what the impact is going to be when we raise the minimum wage. We are only going to have to work two jobs instead of three.'' Only two jobs instead of three. ``We might get a chance to see our children more often. We might be able to go to teachers' meetings. We might be able to spend some time with our child helping with some homework.'' That is the difference in terms of any kind of increase in the minimum wage. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about at a time when we have the strongest economy in the history of this country and at a time when we have hard-working Americans who are prepared to do the work. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have some time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just again to underline the excellent point my friend from Iowa made, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors study, in 1997 requests for emergency food aid increased 86 percent in the cities served--these are cities with Republican and Democratic mayors. Mr. President, 67 percent of the cities cited low- paying jobs as one of the main causes of hunger. Low-paying jobs are the most frequently cited causes of hunger. Nearly half of those relying on emergency food aid do so because their earnings are too low. In 1997, in Jeffersonville, IN, one-fourth of the families receiving emergency shelter were earning less than $6 an hour. This is about fairness to teachers' aides, to child care workers. It is a basic and fundamental issue with regard to health care workers as well. We are either going to respect our fellow citizens and give them this modest increase in the minimum wage, or we are not going to meet our responsibilities. Mr. President, has the time expired?

Mr. KENNEDY. Two more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3540.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes 15 seconds. At long last, the Senate is about to vote on raising the minimum wage. The Nation has enjoyed extraordinary prosperity in recent years. Unemployment and inflation are at their lowest levels in a generation. Interest rates are low, and the economy is strong and growing. But 12 million hard-working Americans are left out and left behind. They are minimum wage workers, and for them, the current prosperity is someone else's boom. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, minimum wage workers earn just $10,700 a year, $2,900 below the poverty level for a family of three. A full day's work should mean a fair day's pay. But for these 12 million Americans, it does not. These hard-pressed Americans can barely make ends meet every month. Too often they are forced to choose between paying the light bill or the phone bill or the heating bill. An unexpected illness or family crisis is enough to push them over the edge. Their plight is shocking and unacceptable. If this country values work as we say we do, we must be willing to pay these workers a decent wage. The wealthiest nation on Earth can afford to do better for these hard-working citizens, and today we have the opportunity to do so. We can raise the minimum wage. Giving workers another 50 cents an hour may not sound like much, but it can make all the difference for these hard-working Americans. It can help buy groceries or pay the rent or defray the costs of job training courses at the local community college. The minimum wage is a women's issue. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue. It is a labor issue. It is a family issue. Above all, it is a fairness issue and a dignity issue. Raising the minimum wage is a matter of fundamental fairness and simple justice. In a few moments, the Senate will have the opportunity to do more than pay lip service to these basic principles. If we believe in these ideals, we will vote to raise the minimum wage. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back and ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself all of the time remaining on the Democratic side.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Muriel Humphrey Brown was an outstanding woman, and all of us who knew her and had the opportunity to serve with her in the Senate mourn her loss today. The people of Minnesota have lost one of their finest public servants, and this country has lost one of its finest crusaders. Muriel was an outstanding campaigner for her husband, Hubert Humphrey, who was a great Senator himself, and a great Vice President too. Together, they made a extraordinary team. She was the soft-spoken, gentle, guiding force behind Hubert's mayoral, Senatorial, Vice Presidential and Presidential campaigns. In fact, Muriel changed the rules of Presidential campaigning by becoming one of the first wives to speak out by herself on the Presidential campaign trail. Muriel's eloquence and wisdom could still be heard in recent days, as she celebrated the victory of her son, Skip, in the primary last week in his campaign to became the next Governor of Minnesota. Muriel was an eloquent activist in her own right. She became the twelfth woman to serve in the U.S. Senate, when she was appointed in 1978 to complete the unexpired term of her husband. During her service in the Senate that year, Muriel's courage, wisdom, and ability enabled her to carry on the high ideals and important social programs of her husband. She was an able leader on issues important to women, and her vigorous support for legislation to extend the deadline for States to ratify the equal rights amendment was a major step forward for women's rights throughout the Nation. As a member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Muriel introduced civil service reform amendments to protect employees who provided information on illegal Government activities and mismanagement. Her proposals became the foundation for the well-known ``whistleblower'' protections that employees have today. Muriel also actively supported the passage of the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Amendments in 1978, which provided a wide range of new services for the handicapped and the retarded. Prior to her service in the Senate, she became a leading crusader for the disabled. She had served on a committee for mental retardation during the administration of President Johnson, and she encouraged many reforms to improve mental health and care for the mentally ill. And above all else, Muriel Humphrey was deeply committed to the enactment of the Humphrey-Hawkins full employment bill. Its goal was to do more to reduce unemployment in communities across the country, and the enactment of this legislation was a major accomplishment for Muriel and the entire Nation. In every respect, Muriel was a wonderful wife, mother, Senator and leader. She served the American people for 34 years as the wife of our distinguished colleague, Hubert Humphrey, and also in her own right as a highly respected Member of the Senate. She had a remarkable grasp of the issues and a genuine interest in helping others. She earned the respect and admiration of all of us who had the privilege to serve with her, and her spirit and courage and determination will be long remembered by the American people. My thoughts and prayers are with the Humphrey family. America has lost a unique leader, and the Kennedy family has lost a wonderful friend.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on another matter, on tomorrow we will have an opportunity to address the issue of an increase in the minimum wage for working Americans, at 2:15 p.m. Starting at 10:30 in the morning, the amendment will be before the U.S. Senate, and we will have that opportunity, with the time equally divided before the luncheon break, to make the case for the increase in the minimum wage for working Americans, those who are on the lower rung of the economic ladder. This afternoon, in the time which is available, I would like to anticipate and respond to a number of our colleagues who will raise questions about whether it is appropriate to increase the minimum wage at this time. Throughout the history of the minimum wage, our opponents have claimed that raising the minimum wage will add to the rate of inflation. Those who oppose fair increases in the wages for working families also claim that unemployment will increase among the workers in this country and, therefore, be counterproductive to the various people we are trying to help. We have raised it on five different occasions since the end of World War II. So it is fair enough for us to look back on the history of the increases in the minimum wage to find out if there is validity to those particular arguments. And, quite clearly, those arguments have to fail on their face. And I will have an opportunity briefly this afternoon and in a more detailed way to respond to these arguments on tomorrow. But a basic, fundamental point, Mr. President, that is at the heart of this whole issue is whether we in this country really honor work and whether we think that Americans who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year ought to live in poverty, that they ought to live in poverty and that their children should live in poverty. As Americans, we have experienced the most extraordinary economic growth over the period of the last 6 years, with economic growth, price stability, low interest rates, low rates of inflation, declining unemployment. We are also experiencing the longest period of economic growth and price stability in the history of this Nation. I think we were reminded a week or so ago when we found out that the stock market went down some 300 points. People were saying we lost $1 trillion in terms of value, and then it bounced back the next day. We see these extraordinary fluctuations. We see the extraordinary creation of wealth in just about every population, except for the low-income, working families in this Nation. They have not been a part of the growth of economic prosperity. If we look at what happened in this country in the immediate post-war period, from 1948 into the late 1950s through the 1960s, and actually up to 1972. If we divided the economic incomes into what they call quintiles and divide by five, and look at the relative growth in terms of income over a 30-year period, in the post-war period where we had times of recession, inflation, a variety of economic shocks, we come to one very basic and fundamental conclusion. All of those quintiles went up, and went up together. There was merely a 5-point or 10-point percent difference between those at one level and those at another level. All Americans went up together. The rising tide raised all the boats. We did not have this period of economic growth and price stability. What has happened in the more recent times? In more recent times we have seen the enormous accumulation of wealth among the most fortunate individuals in this country and the wealthiest corporations and an actual decline in the purchasing power of the minimum wage workers. They have been the big losers. They haven't just been holding steady, they have lost in terms of purchasing power. We have an opportunity tomorrow to say whether this is fair, right here in the United States of America, among our fellow citizens who are working hard and trying to provide for their families and have hopes and dreams like every Member of this body. It is interesting that just this last year Members in the U.S. Senate accumulated, with our rate of inflation on our own salaries, the equivalent of more than $1.50 per hour in 1 year. Do we understand that? Every Member in this body this last year got an increase of more than $1.50 an hour. And they all effectively took it. We are talking about the men and women in this country who work as teachers' aides, in nursing homes, and who clean these facilities that we have here in buildings all across America. They are also child care workers or assistants to children. We are asking to provide these workers an increase of 50 cents in January and 50 cents the following year. We, in the Senate, have taken $1.50 for ourselves, and I didn't hear many voices in opposition to that. But we will hear a lot of opposition tomorrow about providing 50 cents for these hard-working Americans next year, and 50 cents the following year. We will hear opposition and we will have a vote here in the U.S. Senate. I will be frank and say it is still an uphill battle. We are continuing to make that case, and we are hopeful we will be successful. How can we possibly justify voting ourselves $1.50 more an hour, but not for the child care workers, not for the teacher assistants, not for those working in nursing homes and looking after our parents? Why? Because they will say they are worried about inflation and are worried about the impact of the increase of the minimum wage on our total economy--an $8 trillion total economy. Ten million Americans will get the equivalent of another $1, spread over a 2-year period. The proposed increases in the minimum wage would amount to a tiny fraction of our total economy. We are going to hear from some who will say we cannot afford it because it will be an inflator in terms of our economy. It wasn't an inflator when we had an increase for ourselves, but it will be an inflator if we are going to provide the increase for these working families. Many are working, single mothers who are trying to provide for their children. Sixty percent are women who have two or three jobs to try to provide for their families. We hear a lot on the floor of the U.S. Senate about family values. What about that mother who doesn't have the time to spend with that child on their homework or doesn't have the time to take that child for a walk in the park on a Sunday because they have to go to another job? When that child asks to go to a birthday party, and the mother says, ``You can't because we can't afford a present,'' what about those family values? What about those family values? Raising the minimum wage is a fundamental issue of fairness. Are we going to honor work? Are we going to say to our fellow citizens that we, as a nation, have enough sense of common purpose and direction that we believe that many of our neighbors who may not have the kind of training or the education, may have had a life that has been challenging and difficult, may be struggling to try to provide for their families, are not even going to be able to be lifted out of poverty? We have seen the greatest accumulation of wealth in the history of this Nation, and we have seen the greatest growth of disparity between the most affluent and those who are the neediest workers in our country, and we have seen this disparity grow to be greater than it has ever been in the history of this Nation. This is a very, very small step to try to do a little something about it. In past years, raising the minimum wage has been a bipartisan effort. This chart reflects basically the points I have been making in the past few moments. This chart shows about where the minimum wage was, in real, constant dollars, from 1955-1998 and beyond, to the year 2000. In 1955, we got the increase in the minimum wage. It went to almost $6. For the period of the late 1950s, to the 1960s, the 1970s, beginning into the early 1980s, in all that period of time, for some 30 years, the purchasing power for the minimum wage was far above what it would be if we were able to pass the legislation tomorrow to increase the minimum wage by 50 cents next year and 50 cents the following year. All we are trying to do is get to the bottom, not to the top, of what it would be--$7.38 in purchasing power. We are trying to just get into the zone. We will still be at the lowest for a period of 30 years, at a time of economic prosperity. These increases that have taken place since 1955 have had Republican and Democratic support. It didn't used to be a partisan issue. But we are just trying to get there. We have to ask, Is that so unreasonable, Mr. President? Look what happens if we are not successful. If we are not successful in getting the increase in the minimum wage, the purchasing power of the minimum wage, drops back to $4.82 an hour. By 2000, it drops back to $4.82. We are just trying to get the minimum wage up to $6.15. Even by 2000, it will only be worth $5.76. It will still be well below what the purchasing power has been in here, Mr. President. This is an extremely modest bill. This gives you the history on this chart. These are working families and individuals, who will and can work, who play by the rules, go out to earn a modest living every single day. If these workers miss a paycheck, they miss paying the utilities. If they miss a paycheck, they can't afford to provide for the kind of attention to meet health care for a child. If they miss a paycheck, there is no opportunity to provide for children. Nor can they give them a night out at the movies. That is how close this figure is, Mr. President. Do you know what this $1 increase represents, Mr. President? That $1 increase, most of all, means dignity to these workers. That is our No. 1 reason. These workers can free themselves from the reliance on support programs. It gives them a sense of dignity. That is important. We spend a great deal of time around here adding and subtracting and looking at balances. Once in a while, we ought to look at what the real impact is in terms of human quality. It is dignity. It is the fact that men and women can look at their families and know that they have a job that offers them an opportunity to live with some dignity. That is what this is really about. But look at what this $1 represents. Some people might say, well, that is not an awful lot. It certainly is for these families. It represents about 6 months of groceries for a family. It represents about 7 months of rent, on average, for a family. It represents two- thirds of the tuition for a community college so that one of their children can go on to a community college. That is the kind of hope and opportunity it means for these families. It is a big deal. It is important. We talk about a billion dollars here and a billion dollars being real money. But this 50 cents and 50 cents--another dollar, over the period of 2 years--is a lot of money for working families. So, Mr. President, the other issue I will mention very briefly here is whether this adds to the rate of inflation. Mr. President, I want to address these two issues very quickly; that is, what the impact of the increase in the minimum wage is on inflation. Raising the minimum wage does not fuel inflation. It says on the top of this chart, right here, going back to 1996, in January of 1996 we have three-tenths of 1 percent. This is the inflation rate increase per month during this period of time. It is three-tenths of 1 percent. It dropped here. Then it went up. But, generally speaking, for a period before 9 months, it was three-tenths of 1 percent. It increased it to $4.75. Look at what happens to the rate of inflation. It drops back and drops, and it settles on in here. Instead of three-tenths per month, it drops down to two-tenths per month. Then we increase it to $5.15, and down it goes again, and then up, and then down again. This spans from January of 1996 through June of 1998. That is a pretty clear indication that the two last increases, with the rate of inflation, when we didn't have as favorable an economy as we do today--that effectively there has been no impact on the rate of inflation. If we look at what the impact of the minimum wage has been on the unemployment rate, again, this chart here represents--these are Bureau of Labor statistics and they are authenticated. If you look back in October of 1996, what the rate of unemployment was, it was just above 5 percent--about 5.2 percent. We saw the increase in the minimum wage and a little blip here, and then we see how it has declined, below 5 percent. It was increased to $5.15, and the chart settles in now to about 5.5 percent. I think, if we look at the most recent figures, it is down to 4.3 percent. So the two major arguments have been that it adds to the unemployment rate and it adds to the inflation rate. The final point I will make, since this is an argument that is raised most recently, as well--maybe it doesn't add to inflation, but let's look at this. The minimum wage doesn't harm small business, it says on this chart. This is a Jerome Levy Economic Institute 1998 survey of 568 small businesses. ``Did the recent increase in minimum wage affect hiring or unemployment decisions?'' Mr. President, 6.2 percent said yes, 79 percent said no. ``Would raising the minimum wage cause you to lay off or hire workers?'' Three percent said yes, 93 percent said no. They have a longer study which basically supports this. We have had the Restaurant Association that has talked about how this was going to be ``devastating.'' But they have increased their employment by 230,000 restaurant workers over this period, although they had predicted an absolute disaster in terms of the restaurant business. That is done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So it is important that we try to put this into some kind of perspective. The basic issue in question is: Are we going to be fair to working Americans? Do we believe that these Americans who are at the lower level of the economic ladder should be able to participate, to some degree, in terms of economic prosperity? Tomorrow, we will have an opportunity to answer that question. I hope that the Senate will vote in favor of providing it. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on September 15, 1998, at the National Press Club, Secretary of Education Dick Riley, delivered an impressive ``Back to School'' Address on the state of education in the nation. No one has been more thoughtful and effective in the effort to improve public schools for all children. I believe all of us will be interested in seeing this important address, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The Challenge for America: A High Quality Teacher in Every Classroom Good afternoon. At the beginning of every school year, I have the good fortune to come to the National Press Club to give my ``Back to School'' address. I have been traveling from Georgia to the Pacific Northwest as part of my annual back to school push, and I can tell you that America's schools are overflowing with children. It is an exciting time for children and parents; but in too many cases our schools are overcrowded, wearing out and in desperate need of modernization. As I noted in our annual report on the ``baby-boom echo'' which we released last week, we are once again breaking the national enrollment record. There are currently 52.7 million young people in school and more on the way. And in the next ten years we will need to recruit 2.2 million teachers to teach them. This is why I believe that the education of our children should be this nation's number one national priority in this time of peace and prosperity. I also believe that this is the patriotic thing to do as well. Like many of you I had the opportunity to see the movie, ``Saving Private Ryan.'' It is a wonderful movie that acknowledges the sacrifice of a generation of Americans who did their duty in World War II. Tom Hanks plays Captain Miller, an English teacher, who does what he has to do, even at the risk of his own life. I believe that the new patriots of our time will be those Americans, young and old, who go into teaching to educate this generation of children. And I will tell you this--as I travel around the country, parents tell me again and again that they have very clear priorities about what we should be doing here in Washington. They want safe schools, our help in building new schools and modernizing old ones, smaller classes, and the assurance that there is a good teacher in every classroom. This is the nation's business and we need to get on with it. If Congress is serious about getting dollars to the classrooms, I urge them to enact our legislation to modernize our schools and reduce class size by hiring 100,000 new teachers. Rearranging existing programs, which seems to be the intent of the Congress, does nothing to address the real challenges facing schools today. In addition, Congress should fund the President's initiatives in the Appropriations bill that they are now considering. The focus of my speech is on what we must do to prepare the next generation of teachers and this is why I am releasing a report today entitled ``Promising Practices'' which highlights new ways that we can improve teacher quality. This publication was developed following a national search for models of excellence that address the needs at every stage of a teacher's career. In preparing my remarks I have had the good advice of three members of my staff--two former National Teachers of the Year--Terry Dozier and Mary Beth Blegen--as well as that of Paul Schwarz, the former principal of a nationally recognized high school--Central Park East in New York City. Like all good teachers Terry, Mary Beth and Paul have clear opinions about how we can improve American education. In other words, they do not mince words. So I won't either. Missing the Mark in Recruiting New Teachers I am concerned that we are missing the mark when it comes to preparing the next generation of teachers. We do not seem to recognize the magnitude of the task ahead. In the next ten years, we need to recruit 2.2 million teachers. One-half to two-thirds of these teachers will be first time teachers. We have more than a million veteran teachers on the verge of retiring. The first chart attached to my speech makes this point very vividly. By my reckoning, we are about five years away from a very dramatic change in our teaching force. The vast majority of these experienced teachers who are about to retire are women. This, in fact, may be the last generation of women who went into teaching because there were limited opportunities in other fields. In 1998, women have many more career options--and that is a very good thing for our nation. These new opportunities for women will require us, then, to work much, much harder to recruit and train a new generation of teachers. Many people ask me whether we have a teacher shortage. My answer is yes. We face a shortage of high quality teachers. We are already seeing spot shortages developing in specific fields of expertise--math, science, special education and bilingual education. The recent news that New York City recruited math teachers from Austria highlights this growing dynamic. School districts usually find a way to put somebody in front of every classroom, and that is the problem. Too many school districts are sacrificing quality for quantity to meet the immediate demand of putting a warm body in front of a classroom. This is a mistake. Even now, too many school districts are issuing emergency licenses. Many of these emergency teachers are dedicated and want to do their best. But I have heard about and read too many horror stories about provisional teachers who are teaching by the seat of their pants with no preparation and no guidance. The coming wave of retirements has enormous implications in our continuing effort to raise standards, to develop successful recruitment strategies, and prepare new teachers. We also need to recognize that the teaching profession is dramatically changing--the use of computers, teaching in teams, and the recognition that children learn in many different ways--are just three of the many factors reshaping this demanding profession. Three other dynamics also require our attention: the increasing diversity of our classrooms and the lack of diversity of our teaching force; the increasing number of special education children and Limited English Proficient (LEP) children in the regular classroom and teachers who lack the training to teach them; and the need for many more incentives to keep veteran teachers up-to-date and in the classroom. what is wrong with the system I believe we also need to take a hard look at the very structure of our current teaching system and get on with the task of modernizing it as well. We cannot allow an outdated teaching system to frustrate and even destroy the hopes and dreams of too many teachers. The task is multi-dimensional. For example, too many teacher education programs are focused on theory and not enough on clinical experience. Also, the current certification process is a cumbersome obstacle course that has little to do with excellence and much more to do with filling out paperwork. And once a new teacher enters the classroom we allow a perverse ``sink or swim'' approach to define the first years in teaching. New teachers are usually assigned the most difficult classes in addition to all the extra-curricular activities that no one else wants to supervise. Then we wonder why we lose 22% of new teachers in the first three years--and close to 50% in our urban areas. This churning process and over-reliance on emergency teachers just doesn't cut it in my opinion. Imagine the outcry if a quarter of all new doctors left the profession after their first three years. This is why I encourage local school districts to develop some type of long-term induction or mentoring program to help new teachers stay in the profession. creating a national partnership Education, as I have said many times before, is a state responsibility, a local function and a national priority. We cannot address the task at hand in a piecemeal fashion. We need a nationwide partnership among K-12 leaders, our higher education community, and political leaders at all levels. Now a great deal of effort has gone into improving and supporting the teaching profession in the last decade. The National Commission on Teaching led by Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina and Linda Darling Hammond has provided an excellent ``road map'' to improve the teaching profession. This is all to the good. But now we need to make things happen and go to a new level of intensity. And I assure you--we will place a very strong emphasis on teacher quality when we ask the Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act next year. The bipartisan leaders of the Congressional education committee understand that need, and we will be working with them to shape that legislation. improving recruitment There are other steps we can take now to encourage more Americans to enter the teaching profession. The Clinton Administration strongly supports the Feinstein- Boxer Amendment to the Higher Education Act that will provide Pell Grants for a fifth year to those college students who want to become teachers and need another year to meet state fifth year requirements. This is particularly important to the state of California which has the daunting task of recruiting 250,000 teachers in the next decade. I am pleased that strong support is developing in the Congress for improvements in teacher education and standards. The Administration will continue to press the Congress to pass our proposals to recruit nearly 35,000 teachers over the next five years for underserved areas. As members meet today to advance this higher education legislation, I urge them to support our recruitment proposals. This important piece of legislation will almost certainly include valuable new teacher loan forgiveness provisions that have been championed by Senator Kennedy. I also urge Congress to fund the President's initiative to train new teachers in technology. I support the creation of some type of national job bank to match teachers with districts with a growing shortage of quality teachers. There are wide regional variations in the need for teachers. We can do a lot to help get teachers in different parts of the country matched with school districts in other regions that are facing growing shortages. At the same time, the increasing mobility of Americans is going to require states and school districts to take a serious look at the portability of teacher credentials, their years in service, and pensions. We do not need artificial shortages developing because states have not brought their policies up-to-date. Our federal efforts to enlist millions of Americans to go into teaching can have an impact. Our best hope, however, is the strong encouragement of parents and grandparents whose lives have been touched by good teachers. I get distressed when I hear stories about parents discouraging their children from going into teaching. Teaching is about serving your country and being patriotic. I also challenge the myth that teaching is only for those who can't cut it in other professions. Anyone who has ever spent an hour in a classroom full of demanding second graders or had the challenge of motivating a group of teenagers knows how difficult the job can be. America's teachers are some of the most idealistic and patriotic Americans in this country. I am extremely proud of them. So many of them have entered teaching because they want to change the world and many of them do. What are our other challenges? challenges to america's higher education community I challenge the leaders of America's great colleges and universities to make teacher education a much higher day-to-day priority. Teaching teachers has to be the mission of the entire university. Our nation's colleges of education can no longer be quiet backwaters that get a mere mention in the annual report to university trustees. College administrators who complain about the high cost of remedial classes would do well to pay more attention to how they prepare teachers. Here several suggestions come to mind. First, colleges of education should give basic skills tests to students entering teacher education programs prior to their acceptance and at the same time hold themselves more accountable for their graduates. This is why I endorse the thrust for accountability by Senator Bingaman and Representative George Miller. Second, stronger links must be developed between our colleges of arts and sciences and colleges of education. Future teachers should major in the subject they want to teach, and that type of course work takes place in the colleges of arts and sciences. Third, I urge teacher prep programs to put a much stronger focus on giving future teachers rigorous grounding in developing the skills they need to teach. It is harder than you think. Knowing your content is not enough. There is a skill and a craft to it all, and that is especially true when it comes to teaching reading. This is why I believe that every teacher who is seeking a certificate in elementary education should have solid preparation in reading. One of the major aspects of the reading bill now up in the Congress is strong support for increased professional development for reading. I support this effort and ask the Congress to pass this needed legislation. We will never raise standards if we just stay with the status quo when it comes to improving literacy. Fourth, colleges of education need to recognize that our special education and LEP populations are growing and deserve much more of their attention as they prepare teachers. Finally, I urge colleges and universities to develop much stronger links with local schools. The El Paso school district, which we feature in our report ``Promising Practices,'' has dramatically improved its test scores by working hand-in-hand with the University of Texas in El Paso to improve teacher education. challenges to state government and local school districts State governments and local school districts have a powerful role to play in reshaping the teaching profession. This is why I challenge every state to create a demanding but flexible certification process. Becoming a teacher should not be an endurance test that requires future teachers to overcome a bureaucratic maze of hoops and paperwork. I believe a much stronger focus should be placed on assessing the knowledge and skills of future teachers however they got them. This is why I support rigorous alternative pathways to teaching which can be so helpful in recruiting mid-career professionals to the teaching profession. I challenge every state to eliminate the practice of granting emergency licenses within the next five years. You cannot set standards and then immediately discard them when the need for another warm body arises. New York State has taken the lead in doing away with emergency licenses and other states should follow this good example. At the same time, we cannot challenge high poverty schools to raise their standards and then shortchange them by doing nothing to help them recruit the best teachers. This is why we are pushing the Congress to pass our strong teacher recruitment initiative. At the same time, our nation's urban areas have to do their part as well. Outdated hiring practices sometimes seem to be the reason that they are losing good candidates for teaching positions to suburban school districts. State and local school districts must also end the practice of teaching ``out of field.'' (Over 30 percent of all math teachers, for example, are now teaching out of field.) I believe that every teacher, at a minimum, should have a minor in the subject that they teach. I cannot even begin to tell you how baffled foreign education ministers are who visit me when I explain our unusual habit of allowing teachers to teach ``out of field.'' incentives for veteran teachers As we seek to raise standards for our students, we need to work much harder at giving veteran teachers the opportunity to keep on learning. Current professional development courses with their emphasis on workshops that put a premium on ``seat time'' really need to become a thing of the past. We are developing more and more evidence that school districts that invest in quality professional development for their teachers see positive results in the classroom. The good work of Tony Alvarado in District 2 in New York City, who made sure learning new skills was an everyday experience for his teachers is a wonderful national model. We need other incentives as well. The current system of providing salary increases for credits earned seems flawed. There is often no connection between the credits earned by a teacher and what he or she actually teaches in the classroom. And, there is little incentive to encourage teachers to gain more knowledge or improve specific skills for their classrooms. Excellence, in a word, is not rewarded. Only 14 states, for example, currently provide salary supplements to those teachers who set out to become master teachers through the National Board Certification process. As a result many of the best teachers leave the classroom to get a bigger paycheck as a school administrator. This is why I ask states and local school districts to take a good look at a new and developing concept called ``knowledge and skill-based pay.'' Put simply, teachers are paid extra for new skills and knowledge they acquire. Teachers under this system get rewarded for specific skills and knowledge that help a school reach its own established goals. Now, a word about teacher salaries. As I have said many times before, we cannot expect to get good teachers on the cheap. Mary Beth Blegen, the national teacher of the year in 1996, was being paid a $36,000 salary with 30 years of experience--a fraction of what she deserved--and what other professionals expect after years in service. If we are going to entice more Americans to enter teaching we need to offer them fair and competitive salaries. And, if we are going to ask teachers to meet new and demanding standards we also need to pay them for their effort. States like Connecticut and North Carolina have had the good sense to raise standards for teachers and raise salaries at the same time. The results in the classroom are promising. I believe every state would be wise to follow their good example. If we really want to recruit and retain good teachers we need to let them teach in first class school buildings. What kind of message do we send our children and our teachers when we ask them to go to a run down school building just a mile down the road from an immaculate prison? President Clinton has proposed a very strong school construction initiative. Congress needs to get off the dime and pass it. In this speech, I have challenged many different groups to come forward and join a national partnership for excellence in teaching. It seems appropriate to end my remarks by taking a moment to talk to America's teachers. You are the heart and soul of the renaissance of American education. As I travel throughout the country, I have the opportunity to meet many of you. Each time I am struck by how important, yet how difficult, your job is. As teachers, you are being asked to know more and do more than ever before. Please continue your good work and go out of your way to recruit new teachers. Let others know the joy you get from teaching. Help the struggling teacher to improve--and help to counsel out of the profession those who cannot. And make the effort to measure yourselves against the best. I end now with a quote from an old friend of mine from South Carolina, the writer Pat Conroy. This quote is from his novel ``Prince of Tides.'' In this passage, Tom, a teacher who is the main character of the book is asked why he chose to ``sell himself short'' when he was so talented and could have done anything in his life. Tom's reply goes like this, ``There's no word in the language that I revere more than `teacher.' '' None. ``My heart sings'' he says, ``when a kid refers to me as his teacher and it always has. I've honored myself and the entire family of man by becoming a teacher.'' With that I thank all teachers on behalf of the American people. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose this legislation, and I urge the Senate to sustain the President's veto. In my view, this legislation is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and President Clinton was right to veto it. The Roe and Casey decisions prohibit the government from imposing an ``undue burden'' on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion at any time up to the point where the developing fetus reaches the stage of viability. The government can constitutionally limit abortions after the stage of viability, as long as the limitations contain exceptions to protect the life and the health of the woman. This bill fails that constitutional test. In cases before viability, it clearly imposes an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. In cases after viability, it clearly does not contain the constitutionally required exception to protect the mother's health. Supporters of this legislation are flagrantly defying these constitutional requirements. In the vast majority of states that have passed so-called partial-birth abortion bans, the law is on appeal, enjoined, or the subject of a restraining order. With only one exception, where the laws have been challenged, the courts have concluded that these bans are unconstitutional. The conclusion is obvious. The supporters of this unconstitutional legislation would rather have an issue than a bill. President Clinton vetoed this legislation on October 10, 1997. Almost an entire year has passed since that veto. If the Senate Republican leadership genuinely cared about preventing these abortions, they would have brought this veto before the Senate long ago. Instead, they delayed and delayed and delayed. And now, surprise! The Senate is finally being asked to vote on this veto a few weeks before election day. They want an issue, not a bill. In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Coreen Costello put this issue clearly. After consulting numerous medical experts and doing everything possible to save her child, Coreen Costello had the procedure that would be banned by this legislation. Based on that experience, she said this to our committee: I hope you can put aside your political differences, your positions on abortion, and your party affiliations and just try to remember us. We are the ones who know. We are the families that ache to hold our babies, to love them, to nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a hole in our hearts. We are the families that had to choose how our babies would die . . . please put a stop to this terrible bill. Families like mine are counting on you. I want the Senate to sustain the President's veto.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator D'Amato's amendment to ban ATM surcharge fees. This is good policy, and we all ought to vote in favor of it. These fees, which in some instances have reached exorbitant levels like $5 or $10 per transaction, are charged against consumers to access their own money. The large bank networks, which typically operate the automatic teller machines, already charge a transaction fee to smaller banks for the use of their network. These surcharges are a second charge, directly to the consumer, for the privilege of using the machine. Some have argued that consumer behavior has changed, so that consumers can learn how to minimize surcharges. They can do this by getting cash back on debit card purchases, or by taking more money out at one time. But these are the savvy consumers, or those who are able to take out a large amount of money at one time. The consumers who end up paying these fees are those who have the fewest options: their money is tighter, or they are in an emergency situation, or they don't understand the system enough to avoid these fees. Do we want to protect the rights of the banks to take advantage of those consumers? The banks now charge the consumer at every turn. They first said that tellers were too expensive and encouraged us to use machines. Now they charge both the consumer, and the consumer's bank, for the privilege of using the ATM machine. This gouging of the consumer has to stop! Some have argued that we should allow banks to police themselves on this issue. In my home state of Massachusetts, for example, the Massachusetts Bankers Association has worked to organize fee free alliances between big and small banks so that consumers can use machines statewide and avoid surcharges. This is a terrific program, and I compliment the MBA for developing it. Truly progressive organizations, like Fleet Bank which operates throughout New England, have agreed not to charge fees for ATM use in low and moderate income communities. This is progressive corporate policy, and I salute them for it. These financial institutions can be a model for the nation. Unfortunately, there are not enough banks like those in my home state. And so we must pass this amendment. We have heard from consumers, and they have had enough. I know banks have heard from their customers in response to these charges. They have complained about it, loud and clear. If banks had been proactive and responded by policing themselves, we would not be compelled to pursue an amendment such as this. These exorbitant charges are an outrage! The Senate must act to protect the consumer from excessive charges. In a time in which we are debating bankruptcy legislation, which has been supported strongly by banks and credit card companies, we also need to enact some provisions which will help the working men and women of this country. We must end the gouging of the American consumer! I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting Senator D'Amato's amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to indicate that I will object at that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. When the Senate convenes tomorrow, what will be the unfinished business? Will the remaining time be allocated under the cloture motion, which entitles Members to speak for up to an hour in the post-cloture period?

Mr. KENNEDY. It will require consent to move off that to consider other business, is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.