Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, several months ago, the world learned of one of the most astounding developments in modern biology: the cloning of a sheep named Dolly. This extraordinary scientific achievement awakened widespread concern about the possibility of a brave new world, where human beings would be cloned and where individuals would seek to achieve a kind of immortality by reproducing themselves. There is widespread agreement among scientists, ethicists, and ordinary Americans that production of human beings by cloning should be prohibited, at least until the possibilities and pitfalls of this scientific procedure are better understood. The President reacted rapidly to this scientific advance and the unprecedented issues it raised by asking the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to study the issue and make recommendations. The Commission recommended that creation of human beings by cloning should be banned for several years, and the Administration has submitted legislation to implement this recommendation. The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I are introducing today will assure the American public that reproducing human beings by cloning will be prohibited. It largely follows the President's legislation and the Recommendations of the Commission. It makes it illegal to produce human beings by cloning and establishes strict penalties for those who try to do so. In addition, it prohibits anyone from beginning the cloning process in this country and carrying out the implantation step in another country. But just as important as what the bill does is what it does not do. It does not seek to use public concern about cloning to establish a back door ban on research into human development. A prohibition that goes too far could outlaw needed research on the prevention, treatment, and cure of cancer. It could outlaw needed research on fertility, to help birth defects, and hereditary diseases. It could outlaw needed research on the cure of spinal cord injuries. All of these various kinds of research have broad support in Congress and the country. Yet a blunderbuss ban on human development research could easily interfere with this important and life-saving research, or even halt it altogether. In addition, the FDA has jurisdiction over human cloning and will act vigorously to shut down any clinic that operates without FDA approval. The FDA must find that human cloning is safe and effective. Given the current state of the science, the DFA would almost certainly decide that a human cloning procedure is not safe at the current time. The FDA approval process is not a permanent ban on human cloning, but it effectively bans the procedures for the near future. The American Medical Association and over forty national medical organizations and research groups have voiced support for the kind of research that is urgently needed to continue the progress we are making against a wide range of diseases. Benjamin Younger, the Executive Director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, has said, ``We must work together to ensure that in our effort to make human cloning illegal we do not sentence millions of people to needless suffering because research and progress into their illness cannot proceed.'' The legislation we are introducing today will do what the American people want--ban the production of human beings by cloning. It strikes the proper balance between assuring that human beings will not be reproduced through cloning and allowing needed research to continue. I hope that Congress will act promptly to enact this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support the nominations of Carlos Moreno and Christine Miller to serve as federal judges. Judge Moreno is superbly qualified to serve as a federal judge in the Central District of California. He is a graduate of Yale University, Harvard Business School, and Stanford Law School. Currently, he is a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court. As a member of that court's Trial Delay Reduction Committee he was instrumental in establishing and enforcing policies that successfully reduced trial backlogs in Los Angeles County. At a time when lengthy backlogs are also plaguing the federal courts, Judge Moreno's experience will be an important asset for California's Central District Court. Judge Miller is also well qualified to continue her service on the United States Court of Federal Claims. She has served on that court for the past fifteen years, and President Clinton's nomination of her for a second fifteen-year term is a tribute to her ability and leadership. I also want to take this opportunity to express my concern that the Senate has still not had a chance to vote on the nomination of Margaret Morrow to the federal district court for the Central District of California. Ms. Morrow was first nominated in May 1996. She was approved by the Judiciary Committee in June last year, and it is long past time for the Senate to vote on her nomination. On average, it is taking twice as long for Senate Republicans to confirm President Clinton's nominees as it took for Democrats to act on President Bush's nominations. But I am especially concerned about the Republicans' record of subjecting women who are nominated for federal judgeships to far greater delays than men. Women nominated to the federal courts are four times--four times-- more likely than men to be held up by the Republican Senate for more than a year. Last year, the Senate confirmed 30 men, but only 6 women. And, by confirming only 36 judges, the Senate condemned many of our nation's busiest courts to even lengthier delays in processing their civil cases. There is no question that Margaret Morrow possesses the necessary qualifications to be confirmed. She is a Harvard-educated attorney and a partner in a prestigious California law firm. She is the first woman to serve as the president of the California Bar Association. She is a well-respected attorney and a role model for women in the legal profession. Yet action on her nomination has been delayed--like nine other nominees who have been waiting for more than 18 months--because the Republicans are playing politics and preventing needed judicial positions from being filled. When even a Republican Chief Justice criticizes the Republican Congress for refusing to move more quickly to confirm judges, you know something's wrong. The Chief Justice is deeply concerned about the large number of judicial vacancies on the federal courts. There are too few judges to handle the workload. The bottleneck in the Senate is jeopardizing the court system and undermining the quality of justice. Fewer than half of President Clinton's nominees have been confirmed. We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote. The distinguished majority leader has rightly noted that the process of confirming judges is time-consuming. The Senate should take care to ensure that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate are confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But it should not take longer to consider women than it does to consider men. Some Republicans claim they have slowed the confirmation process to protect the federal courts from ``judicial activism.'' But this argument is a smokescreen. If President Clinton is actually nominating judicial activists, then why is it that these nominees are approved overwhelmingly when the Senate is finally allowed to vote on them? The closest vote that we have had on any nominee in this Congress was the 76 to 30 vote in favor of Ann Aiken last week. The claim that Clinton judges are activist judges is a transparent ruse being used to slow down the confirmation process. The reason is obvious. The Republican majority in Congress is doing all it can to prevent a Democratic President from naming judges to the federal courts. The courts are suffering, and so is the nation. In some areas of the country, people have to wait years to have their cases even heard in court. And then they have to wait years more for overburdened judges to find time to issue their decisions. Families, workers, small businesses, women and minorities have traditionally looked to the courts to resolve disputes. The lack of federal judges makes the swift resolution of their cases impossible. The number of cases filed in the federal appeals courts has grown by 11 percent over the last six years. The average time between filing and disposition has also increased. Courts with long-standing vacancies are in even worse shape. In California's Central District Court, the Court to which both Carlos Moreno and Margaret Morrow have been nominated, the caseload has grown by 15 percent since 1994. The time people have to wait for their civil cases to be resolved has increased by 11 percent. In that district, over 300 pending civil cases are more than three years old. Across the country, real people are being hurt. In the Central District of Illinois, a disabled Vietnam veteran who was fired after enduring harassment from his co-workers has been waiting over three and a half years for a resolution to his case. In the Southern District of Texas, 4,000 victims of a student loan fraud are waiting for the outcome of a class action suit that has been pending for almost eight years. In the District Court of South Carolina, there is still no decision in a suit filed more than six years ago against the state's apportionment laws. The outcome of this case will affect hundreds of thousands of citizens. It goes to the heart of whether the basic constitutional principle of ``one person, one vote'' is being fairly applied. The last communication the lead plaintiff received from the Court was in June of last year. In the Southern District of Florida, Julio Vasquez--a U.S. citizen migrant worker--broke his leg in 1989 in a boarding house provided by his employer. To this day, nearly nine years later, Mr. Vasquez has never received sufficient medical attention, and his injury affects his ability to work. He is still waiting for the judge's ruling in his case. These are typical victims of the vacancy crisis in the federal courts. They are hard-working Americans injured on the job--citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote--students trying to get an education--disabled veterans searching for justice. I commend my colleagues for bringing two distinguished nominees to a vote today. I hope with this new year we will see a new day in moving ahead to fill the vacancies in our courts and end these unconscionable delays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, two years ago last November, Israel lost its beloved Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and the world lost a great peacemaker. My son Patrick and I had the sad honor of traveling to Israel for the funeral. Like millions of people around the world, we admired his leadership and the power of his vision of reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world. On November 13, friends and admirers of Prime Minister Rabin gathered in Boston for a memorial service to commemorate his life and pay tribute to his leadership in putting Israel on the path to peace. His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law, Israel's renowned poet Yehuda Amichai, and Israel's Consul General Itzhak Levanon gave voice to the grief of the world. As we work to carry on the work of peace in the Middle East, the guiding presence of Prime Minister Rabin is deeply missed. I believe my colleagues will be interested in the eloquent reflections of the speakers at the service on Prime Minister Rabin's life and death, and especially on his extraordinary commitment to peace in the Middle East. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks at the memorial service in Boston be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was unable to make my comments earlier involving the consideration and approval of the various judges. I would like to address the Senate for a few moments on this particular issue and, most importantly, to express the strong support for the three nominations that have just been confirmed by the Senate. Judge Silverman has served with distinction for the past three years on the federal district court in Arizona and will be an impressive member of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Richard Story, has served as a state court judge for many years, and will do an excellent job on the United States District Court in Northern Georgia. I am particularly pleased that at long last the Senate is allowed to consider the nomination of Judge Ann Aiken. She is an outstanding choice for the federal district court in Oregon. For the past decade, she has served with distinction as a state court judge--first on the district court and, for the past five years on the circuit court. She is widely respected in Oregon for her service to her community. She received the Woman of Achievement award in 1993 from the Oregon Commission for Women. The U.S. Department of Justice honored her in 1994 for her leadership in helping victims of crime. But despite her impressive qualifications, her nomination has been stonewalled by Republicans in the Senate for more than two years. On the average, it is taking twice as long for Senate Republicans to confirm President Clinton's nominees as it took for Democrats to act on President Bush's nominations to the federal courts. For women, the problem is especially serious. Women nominated to federal judgeships are being subjected to greater delays by Senate Republicans than men. So far in this Republican Congress, women nominated to our federal courts are four times--four times--more likely than men to be held up by the Republican Senate for more than a year. Last year, the Senate confirmed 30 men, but only 6 women. So only 17 percent of the nominees that the Republican leadership brought before the Senate were women--half as many as President Clinton nominated. The country is paying a heavy price for this obstruction. Citizens can't get their day in court, because the Republican Senate is playing politics with the courts and preventing needed judicial positions from being filled. When even a Republican Chief Justice criticizes the Republican Congress, you know something's wrong. Chief Justice Rehnquist issued his annual year-end report on the State of the Judiciary last month, and he sharply criticized the Republican Senate for refusing to move more quickly to confirm judges. The Chief Justice is deeply concerned about the high number of judicial vacancies on the federal courts. There are too few judges to handle the workload. The Republican bottleneck in the Senate is jeopardizing the court system and undermining the quality of justice. Of the 77 judicial nominations pending last year, only 36 were confirmed--less than half. Eleven have been awaiting action for over 18 months. That's a scandal. Nominees deserve a vote. If our Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't just sit on them--that's obstruction of justice. Free and full debate over judicial nominations is healthy. The Constitution is clear that only individuals acceptable to both the President and the Senate should be confirmed. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no. As Chief Justice Rehnquist said in his annual report, ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time it should vote'' up or down. Some Republicans claim they are protecting the federal courts from ``judicial activism.'' But this argument is a smokescreen. If President Clinton is actually nominating judicial activists, then why is it that these nominees are approved almost unanimously when the Senate is finally allowed to vote on them? Eric Clay's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was held up in the Senate for more than 15 months. He was finally confirmed-- unanimously--by voice vote. Joseph Battalion--President Clinton's nominee to the District Court of Nebraska--was held up for 17 months. Then he, too, finally passed the Senate on a voice vote. Other nominees were confirmed by overwhelming votes, but only after long delays. Katherine Sweeney Hayden was confirmed to the District Court in New Jersey by a vote of 97-0. Ronald L. Gilman's nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Janet C. Hall's nomination to the District Court of Connecticut were each confirmed by a vote of 98- 1. The closest vote we have had on any of President Clinton's judicial nominees was 76 to 23 in favor of confirmation. Clearly, the Republicans' claim that Clinton judges are activist judges is a transparent smokescreen being used to slow down the confirmation process. The reason is obvious. The Republican majority in Congress is doing all it can to prevent a Democratic President from naming judges to the federal courts. The courts are suffering and so is the nation. In some areas of the country, people have to wait years to have their cases even heard in court. And then they have to wait years more for overburdened judges to find time to reach their decisions. Families, workers, small businesses, women and minorities have traditionally looked to the courts to resolve disputes. The lack of federal judges makes the swift resolution of their cases impossible. The number of cases filed in the federal appeals courts has grown by 11 percent over the last six years. The average time between filing and disposition has also increased. Courts with long-standing vacancies are in even worse shape. In the District Court in Oregon, the court to which Ann Aiken has been nominated, the number of case filings has risen by nearly a third since 1990. Another nominee, Margaret Morrow has been nominated to the federal district court in Los Angeles, and I hope we will consider her nomination next week. Since 1994, the caseload in that court has grown by 15 percent. The time people have to wait for their civil cases to be resolved has increased by 11 percent. In that district, over 300 pending civil cases are more than three years old. Real people are being hurt. Consider the case of Rudy Boerseker, a 40-year-old mine worker in Illinois who was injured by poor maintenance of equipment. The facts of the case made clear that the accident resulted from the mining company's negligence. Yet Mr. Boerseker was finally forced to accept a settlement for less than half of what he would probably have received if the case had gone to trial. He agreed to an unfair settlement, because he could not afford to wait the three or four years it would take for the case to be decided. In the Southern District of Texas, 4,000 victims of a student loan scam are waiting for the outcome of a class action suit that has been pending for almost eight years. In South Carolina, there is still no decision in a suit filed more than six years ago against the state's apportionment laws. The outcome of this case will affect hundreds of thousands of citizens. It goes to the heart of whether the basic constitutional principle of ``one person, one vote'' is being fairly applied. In Southern Florida, Julio Vasquez--a U.S. citizen migrant worker-- broke his leg in 1989 in a boarding house provided by his employer. To this day, nearly nine years later, Mr. Vasquez has never received sufficient medical attention, and his injury affects his ability to work. He is still waiting for the judge's ruling in his case. In the District Court of Oregon, a five-million dollar judgment in favor a family business in a patent dispute with a Fortune 500 firm was tied up for more than a year because of the delays caused by two vacancies on the court. These examples are typical victims of the vacancy crisis in the federal courts. They are hard-working Americans injured on the job--citizens seeking to exercise their right to vote--students trying to get an education-- small businesses denied their rights by large corporations. It is time to end these delays and end these industries. It's a new year, and a new session, and I hope very much that our colleagues will turn over a new leaf and end these unreasonable, unacceptable, and unconscionable delays.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was proud to be a sponsor of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, and I am proud to support the current reauthorization. I commend Senator Jeffords, Senator DeWine, and Senator Wellstone for their leadership in expediting our consideration of this important legislation. And I commend all the staff members for their skillful work in making this a successful bipartisan consensus bill. I especially thank Senator Tom Harkin for his leadership and continued commitment to individuals with disabilities in this country. The Rehabilitation Amendments of 1992 developed the foundation for a rehabilitation system which recognizes competence and choice, and which gives individuals with disabilities the services and support they need to live, work and participate as fully as possible in their communities. For millions of individuals with disabilities, vocational rehabilitation has meant the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive careers. Most important, the vocational rehabilitation in this country provides the necessary skills and support to keep the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act--so that all individuals with disabilities, especially those with significant disabilities, will have the opportunity to achieve their full potential and be part of the mainstream of American life. The bill being introduced today builds on the gains of the past two decades, by strengthening employment possibilities, encouraging self- employment, providing better outreach to underserved populations, and streamlining the role of the government. This bill also establishes a stronger linkage between vocational rehabilitation and the larger statewide job training system. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact this important legislation, so that the talents, strengths, competence and interests of all individuals with disabilities will be recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was proud to be a sponsor of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, and I am proud to support the current reauthorization. I commend Senator Jeffords, Senator DeWine, and Senator Wellstone for their leadership in expediting our consideration of this important legislation. And I commend all the staff members for their skillful work in making this a successful bipartisan consensus bill. I especially thank Senator Tom Harkin for his leadership and continued commitment to individuals with disabilities in this country. The Rehabilitation Amendments of 1992 developed the foundation for a rehabilitation system which recognizes competence and choice, and which gives individuals with disabilities the services and support they need to live, work and participate as fully as possible in their communities. For millions of individuals with disabilities, vocational rehabilitation has meant the difference between dependence and independence, between lost potential and productive careers. Most important, the vocational rehabilitation in this country provides the necessary skills and support to keep the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act--so that all individuals with disabilities, especially those with significant disabilities, will have the opportunity to achieve their full potential and be part of the mainstream of American life. The bill being introduced today builds on the gains of the past two decades, by strengthening employment possibilities, encouraging self- employment, providing better outreach to underserved populations, and streamlining the role of the government. This bill also establishes a stronger linkage between vocational rehabilitation and the larger statewide job training system. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact this important legislation, so that the talents, strengths, competence and interests of all individuals with disabilities will be recognized, enhanced, and fairly rewarded in communities and workplaces across the nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It is interesting that studies from this month show even greater support for the increase than we saw when we began this debate in the last Congress. Most Americans understand that we have had this extraordinary prosperity for millions of Americans over the period of the last 6 years. Most Americans understand that it has been working families who have made a difference. Those families include minimum wage earners--teachers' aides, who work in classrooms; health care aides, who work in nursing homes; and people who clean office buildings in communities across the country. Those men and women work hard, and they take pride in their work. Many of them have children, and we all know how hard it is to try to raise a family on $5.15 an hour. All those workers ask is to be treated fairly. One of the most startling developments in the last few years is the number of working families who are using soup kitchens, food pantries and homeless shelters in cities across the country. The U.S. Conference of Mayors released a study showing that in 1996, 38% of those seeking emergency food aid are working--not unemployed. This is up from 23% in 1994. And, officials in two-thirds of the cities cited low wages as a primary reason for hunger. I don't know whether the Senator has this problem in rural communities in his region of the Nation. But in urban areas, almost 40 percent of those seeking emergency food aid are working, and they still can't make it. All we are saying is that if you are working you shouldn't have to go to a soup kitchen. When you are working, you shouldn't have to bring your children to a soup kitchen in order to be fed. The minimum wage is designed to prevent such problems. It has been a part of the fabric of our society since the late 1930's, and it has been something which has had bipartisan support in the past. We are hopeful that it will have bipartisan support this time. Ultimately we will have it. But it had bipartisan support under President Bush, and President Nixon supported the increase as well. And Republicans in this body have supported it, too. Many of our colleagues are constantly talking about the importance of rewarding work in our society. But when you have people who are able- bodied, who want to work, and who have jobs--there is something wrong if they can't make it on their own. There is something wrong if we do not try to address that problem.

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely, Senator. We will vote on this issue, and the earlier the better as far as I am concerned, so that minimum wage earners can continue the progress that they have made during the last 2 years. We will vote on this measure. I think that those who are opposed to it will give the Senate the opportunity to vote on it--at least I certainly hope they will. But the Senator is quite correct. We will vote on it one way or the other, and I think we take to heart that Congressman Gephardt, Congressman Bonior and others have an identical bill. They are strongly committed. As Senators remember, there is a more complicated rule process over in the House of Representatives. But there is no reason in the world that we in the Senate cannot have an opportunity to vote on that measure and attach it to legislation and send it over to the House. We will do that and continue to do it until we are successful.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will have a chance to debate this issue. It is not one that should take a great deal of time to review. We have been through this debate time and time again. It hasn't got the complexities of many of the proposals the President will be talking about tonight. It is basic and fundamental. Every Member of this body has addressed this issue and voted on it one way or the other. It is going to be really a reflection of our values. Finally, Mr. President, by not increasing the minimum wage, we leave many workers so poor that they are eligible for government assistance programs, such as food stamps. These programs are being paid for by other workers' taxes. In effect, these employees are subsidizing the businesses that aren't paying a fair wage. I think that is wrong. We will have a chance to review the latest economic information available. We have to address that issue. We understand it. Some of us believe that Americans who work hard and play by the rules ought to be able to get a livable wage as a matter of principle. To achieve that goal, we have to address the impact on inflation and job loss. We will make that argument and we will make it with a great deal of enthusiasm. Two articles from the Wall Street Journal show that the increase in the minimum wage did not cause job loss or increase inflation. I will include those articles in the Record at the appropriate place following my remarks. Here was the newspaper that opposed it hammer and tong the last time we had the increase. I do not suggest that they are going to editorialize in favor of it this time. But, nonetheless, the various studies have shown that there is no evidence that modest increases in the minimum wage would harm the economy or cause job loss. Mr. President, I don't know what will be in the President's State of the Union speech tonight. There are some reports that he will indicate support for an increase in the minimum wage. And if he does I hope that our Chambers will show support for that proposal because I know it will make all the difference in the world for millions of Americans and their families. Increasing the minimum wage will allow them to look to the future with a greater sense of hope. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Wellstone, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Kerry, Torricelli, Boxer, and myself, I am introducing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998, a bill to raise the minimum wage in three annual increases of 50 cents each in the next three years, to bring the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 an hour today to $6.65 an hour on September 1 in the year 2000. Congressmen Bonior and Gephardt are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. After the third year, the legislation calls for the minimum wage to be indexed, so that it will rise automatically as the cost of living increases. Working Americans should not have to depend on the whim of Congress each election year to determine whether they are paid a fair minimum wage. In 1996, after a hard-fought battle in the last Congress, we raised the minimum wage, and the economy continued to grow. The scare tactics about lost jobs proved to be as false as they are self-serving. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute documents that ``the sky hasn't fallen'' as a result of the last increase. Raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss for teenagers, adults, men, women, African-Americans, Latinos, or anyone else. Certainly, the 12 million Americans who would benefit from this legislation deserve the increase. We know who these workers are. Sixty percent are women. Nearly three- quarters are adults. Half of those who would benefit from this bill work full-time. Over 80 percent of them work at least 20 hours a week. They are teachers' aides and child care providers. They are single heads of households with children. They are people who clean office buildings in countless communities across the country. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers earn $10,712 a year-- $2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. In good conscience, we cannot continue to proclaim or celebrate the Nation's current prosperity while consigning millions who have jobs to live in continuing poverty. The value of the minimum wage still lags far behind inflation. To have the purchasing power that it had in 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $7.33 an hour instead of the current level of $5.15 an hour. That fact is a measure of how far we have not just fallen short, but actually fallen back, in giving low-income workers their fair share of our extraordinary economic growth. In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by 115 percent, while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down by 30 percent. Lavish end-of-the-year bonuses were recently distributed on Wall Street--but not to the working families on Main Street, who actually created the wealth in the first place. Americans understand that those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder deserve a raise. Seventy-six percent of those surveyed in the January 21 ABC-Washington Post poll said they supported increasing the minimum wage. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed by Peter Hart Research earlier this month specifically supported a three-year, $1.50 increase. The American people understand the unfairness of requiring working families to subsist on a sub-poverty minimum wage. Across the country, soup kitchens, food pantries and homeless shelters are increasingly serving the working poor, not just the unemployed. In 1996, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 38 percent of those seeking emergency food aid held jobs --up from 23 percent in 1994. Low-paying jobs are the most frequently cited cause of hunger. Officials in 67 percent of the cities cited this factor. I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation. Twelve million working Americans deserve a helping hand. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Mr. President, we have had the opportunity, since the minimum wage was increased in the last two years, to test the validity of the principal argument in opposition to this bill. We will hear this claim again this year on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and that is, that this adds to the problems of inflation. Yet, we have had virtually no inflation over these last 18 months. We will also hear that raising the minimum wage will cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. I can already hear the same tired, old arguments we have heard every time this body has debated an increase in the minimum wage--an estimate that we will lose anywhere from 200,000 to 300,000 to 400,000 jobs. Those were the statements made the last time we debated this issue on the floor of the Senate. And our good Republican friends in the House of Representatives said there was absolutely no way that their body was going to consider an increase in the minimum wage, and there was strong opposition over here among the Republican leadership in the Senate even to giving us an opportunity to vote on this measure. It was only after lengthy efforts that we were able actually to gain a vote and to develop bipartisan support for the minimum wage. Ultimately, the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives responded after we added significant tax reductions for businesses to the legislation. Mr. President, if we do not take action now to increase the minimum wage, then the progress we made in the last two years is gradually going to deteriorate. Even with a three-year increase of 50 cents, 50 cents, and 50 cents, by the third year the about 40 cents of the value of that $1.50 would have dissipated because of inflation. We are talking about working families who are trying to make it in this country, who have played an important role in this whole economic expansion. But those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder have not gotten their fair share of the extraordinary prosperity that we are experiencing under President Clinton's leadership. So I don't understand why there is such opposition to the very modest increases that we are talking about, that even if implemented will hardly permit workers to provide for their families and be out of poverty. As a result of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, many, many more people were thrown into poverty. In many instances, they are not going to get the health care or the day care that they need, depending on a particular State's rules in this regard. But there will be millions of Americans who will be out there in the job market without the health care for their children that Medicaid would have provided or child care coverage that welfare benefits would have provided. What we are asking is that at least we pay them a livable wage. I don't think a single parent, with $10,000 or $12,000, is going to have the kind of child care that any of us would understand or respect. Yesterday, I was in Dorchester, Massachusetts, meeting with parents about an after school program, which has been in effect for a number of years. It's going to be expanded. The mayor of Boston calls it the 2- to-6 program, and is trying to make available, in all parts of Boston, after-school programs for children. It is a very ambitious program. We have seen our Republican Governor indicate that he is supporting the after-school program. I listened to the parents who were out there, who talked about what happens after their children are 12 years old. The State of Massachusetts has a program that provides modest support for this kind of program for children up to 12 years old, but cuts it off there. Parents with tears in their eyes were saying, ``We work hard trying to provide for our families, and we just can't make it. Our children are going home and staying in an empty house in the afternoon.'' They pray that they are not going to get themselves in trouble, that the worst thing that will happen to them is they will just watch television. It might cost those parents $5 or $10 a week, maybe $20 a month to be able to have an after-school program. I expect that any single mom getting an increase in the minimum wage wouldn't think that much of a problem. That is happening in many communities in this country.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this chart here illustrates very clearly the purchasing power of the minimum wage since 1959. All of these figures are in 1997 dollars, adjusted for inflation. In 1968 the real value of the minimum wage was $7.33. In 1995 it was down to $4.32 an hour. In the 1996 legislation, we added two additional steps. On September 1, 1997, the second step took effect, raising the minimum wage's value to $5.15 an hour. If we do nothing, by the year 2000, it will be $4.66 an hour. Our legislation proposes that it go up to $6.18, in three steps. Again, this is the what the minimum wage will buy in 1997 dollars, if our legislation becomes law. Even that increase will leave minimum wage earners below where they were in the 1960s and 1970s. The legislation is a very modest step forward, and I believe that working families have earned it. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles that I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 4 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this chart here illustrates very clearly the purchasing power of the minimum wage since 1959. All of these figures are in 1997 dollars, adjusted for inflation. In 1968 the real value of the minimum wage was $7.33. In 1995 it was down to $4.32 an hour. In the 1996 legislation, we added two additional steps. On September 1, 1997, the second step took effect, raising the minimum wage's value to $5.15 an hour. If we do nothing, by the year 2000, it will be $4.66 an hour. Our legislation proposes that it go up to $6.18, in three steps. Again, this is the what the minimum wage will buy in 1997 dollars, if our legislation becomes law. Even that increase will leave minimum wage earners below where they were in the 1960s and 1970s. The legislation is a very modest step forward, and I believe that working families have earned it. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the two articles that I mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for 2 final minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Many of their parents never went to college. These are teenagers. These students are trying to earn enough to buy their books and maybe attend an athletic event once in a while or be able to pay in order to rent athletic equipment. These students--and yes, they are teenagers--are working long and hard, and they deserve the increase, too.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a good point because the organizations, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Restaurant Association and others are out there already trying to discourage people from supporting this program. We will have a chance to deal with their arguments when we see what has actually happened in terms of the expansion of the restaurant industry and employment among restaurant workers. The Senator is no less interested in expanded employment or adequate income for restaurant workers than I am, and they still have done better with our modest increases in the past, and they will in the future. I want to ask if the Senator will agree with me on one other proposition. We will hear during the debate that at least a quarter of these are teenagers who are making the minimum wage. In my State, tuition at the University of Massachusetts in Boston costs $4297. These students are still 18 and 19 years old. They are teenagers, and many of them are working. These students need the money.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. It is interesting that studies from this month show even greater support for the increase than we saw when we began this debate in the last Congress. Most Americans understand that we have had this extraordinary prosperity for millions of Americans over the period of the last 6 years. Most Americans understand that it has been working families who have made a difference. Those families include minimum wage earners--teachers' aides, who work in classrooms; health care aides, who work in nursing homes; and people who clean office buildings in communities across the country. Those men and women work hard, and they take pride in their work. Many of them have children, and we all know how hard it is to try to raise a family on $5.15 an hour. All those workers ask is to be treated fairly. One of the most startling developments in the last few years is the number of working families who are using soup kitchens, food pantries and homeless shelters in cities across the country. The U.S. Conference of Mayors released a study showing that in 1996, 38% of those seeking emergency food aid are working--not unemployed. This is up from 23% in 1994. And, officials in two-thirds of the cities cited low wages as a primary reason for hunger. I don't know whether the Senator has this problem in rural communities in his region of the Nation. But in urban areas, almost 40 percent of those seeking emergency food aid are working, and they still can't make it. All we are saying is that if you are working you shouldn't have to go to a soup kitchen. When you are working, you shouldn't have to bring your children to a soup kitchen in order to be fed. The minimum wage is designed to prevent such problems. It has been a part of the fabric of our society since the late 1930's, and it has been something which has had bipartisan support in the past. We are hopeful that it will have bipartisan support this time. Ultimately we will have it. But it had bipartisan support under President Bush, and President Nixon supported the increase as well. And Republicans in this body have supported it, too. Many of our colleagues are constantly talking about the importance of rewarding work in our society. But when you have people who are able- bodied, who want to work, and who have jobs--there is something wrong if they can't make it on their own. There is something wrong if we do not try to address that problem.

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely, Senator. We will vote on this issue, and the earlier the better as far as I am concerned, so that minimum wage earners can continue the progress that they have made during the last 2 years. We will vote on this measure. I think that those who are opposed to it will give the Senate the opportunity to vote on it--at least I certainly hope they will. But the Senator is quite correct. We will vote on it one way or the other, and I think we take to heart that Congressman Gephardt, Congressman Bonior and others have an identical bill. They are strongly committed. As Senators remember, there is a more complicated rule process over in the House of Representatives. But there is no reason in the world that we in the Senate cannot have an opportunity to vote on that measure and attach it to legislation and send it over to the House. We will do that and continue to do it until we are successful.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will have a chance to debate this issue. It is not one that should take a great deal of time to review. We have been through this debate time and time again. It hasn't got the complexities of many of the proposals the President will be talking about tonight. It is basic and fundamental. Every Member of this body has addressed this issue and voted on it one way or the other. It is going to be really a reflection of our values. Finally, Mr. President, by not increasing the minimum wage, we leave many workers so poor that they are eligible for government assistance programs, such as food stamps. These programs are being paid for by other workers' taxes. In effect, these employees are subsidizing the businesses that aren't paying a fair wage. I think that is wrong. We will have a chance to review the latest economic information available. We have to address that issue. We understand it. Some of us believe that Americans who work hard and play by the rules ought to be able to get a livable wage as a matter of principle. To achieve that goal, we have to address the impact on inflation and job loss. We will make that argument and we will make it with a great deal of enthusiasm. Two articles from the Wall Street Journal show that the increase in the minimum wage did not cause job loss or increase inflation. I will include those articles in the Record at the appropriate place following my remarks. Here was the newspaper that opposed it hammer and tong the last time we had the increase. I do not suggest that they are going to editorialize in favor of it this time. But, nonetheless, the various studies have shown that there is no evidence that modest increases in the minimum wage would harm the economy or cause job loss. Mr. President, I don't know what will be in the President's State of the Union speech tonight. There are some reports that he will indicate support for an increase in the minimum wage. And if he does I hope that our Chambers will show support for that proposal because I know it will make all the difference in the world for millions of Americans and their families. Increasing the minimum wage will allow them to look to the future with a greater sense of hope. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Wellstone, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, Kerry, Torricelli, Boxer, and myself, I am introducing the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998, a bill to raise the minimum wage in three annual increases of 50 cents each in the next three years, to bring the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 an hour today to $6.65 an hour on September 1 in the year 2000. Congressmen Bonior and Gephardt are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. After the third year, the legislation calls for the minimum wage to be indexed, so that it will rise automatically as the cost of living increases. Working Americans should not have to depend on the whim of Congress each election year to determine whether they are paid a fair minimum wage. In 1996, after a hard-fought battle in the last Congress, we raised the minimum wage, and the economy continued to grow. The scare tactics about lost jobs proved to be as false as they are self-serving. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute documents that ``the sky hasn't fallen'' as a result of the last increase. Raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss for teenagers, adults, men, women, African-Americans, Latinos, or anyone else. Certainly, the 12 million Americans who would benefit from this legislation deserve the increase. We know who these workers are. Sixty percent are women. Nearly three- quarters are adults. Half of those who would benefit from this bill work full-time. Over 80 percent of them work at least 20 hours a week. They are teachers' aides and child care providers. They are single heads of households with children. They are people who clean office buildings in countless communities across the country. Working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers earn $10,712 a year-- $2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. In good conscience, we cannot continue to proclaim or celebrate the Nation's current prosperity while consigning millions who have jobs to live in continuing poverty. The value of the minimum wage still lags far behind inflation. To have the purchasing power that it had in 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $7.33 an hour instead of the current level of $5.15 an hour. That fact is a measure of how far we have not just fallen short, but actually fallen back, in giving low-income workers their fair share of our extraordinary economic growth. In the past 30 years, the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has gone up by 115 percent, while the purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down by 30 percent. Lavish end-of-the-year bonuses were recently distributed on Wall Street--but not to the working families on Main Street, who actually created the wealth in the first place. Americans understand that those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder deserve a raise. Seventy-six percent of those surveyed in the January 21 ABC-Washington Post poll said they supported increasing the minimum wage. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed by Peter Hart Research earlier this month specifically supported a three-year, $1.50 increase. The American people understand the unfairness of requiring working families to subsist on a sub-poverty minimum wage. Across the country, soup kitchens, food pantries and homeless shelters are increasingly serving the working poor, not just the unemployed. In 1996, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 38 percent of those seeking emergency food aid held jobs --up from 23 percent in 1994. Low-paying jobs are the most frequently cited cause of hunger. Officials in 67 percent of the cities cited this factor. I look forward to the early enactment of this legislation. Twelve million working Americans deserve a helping hand. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty. Mr. President, we have had the opportunity, since the minimum wage was increased in the last two years, to test the validity of the principal argument in opposition to this bill. We will hear this claim again this year on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and that is, that this adds to the problems of inflation. Yet, we have had virtually no inflation over these last 18 months. We will also hear that raising the minimum wage will cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. I can already hear the same tired, old arguments we have heard every time this body has debated an increase in the minimum wage--an estimate that we will lose anywhere from 200,000 to 300,000 to 400,000 jobs. Those were the statements made the last time we debated this issue on the floor of the Senate. And our good Republican friends in the House of Representatives said there was absolutely no way that their body was going to consider an increase in the minimum wage, and there was strong opposition over here among the Republican leadership in the Senate even to giving us an opportunity to vote on this measure. It was only after lengthy efforts that we were able actually to gain a vote and to develop bipartisan support for the minimum wage. Ultimately, the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives responded after we added significant tax reductions for businesses to the legislation. Mr. President, if we do not take action now to increase the minimum wage, then the progress we made in the last two years is gradually going to deteriorate. Even with a three-year increase of 50 cents, 50 cents, and 50 cents, by the third year the about 40 cents of the value of that $1.50 would have dissipated because of inflation. We are talking about working families who are trying to make it in this country, who have played an important role in this whole economic expansion. But those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder have not gotten their fair share of the extraordinary prosperity that we are experiencing under President Clinton's leadership. So I don't understand why there is such opposition to the very modest increases that we are talking about, that even if implemented will hardly permit workers to provide for their families and be out of poverty. As a result of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, many, many more people were thrown into poverty. In many instances, they are not going to get the health care or the day care that they need, depending on a particular State's rules in this regard. But there will be millions of Americans who will be out there in the job market without the health care for their children that Medicaid would have provided or child care coverage that welfare benefits would have provided. What we are asking is that at least we pay them a livable wage. I don't think a single parent, with $10,000 or $12,000, is going to have the kind of child care that any of us would understand or respect. Yesterday, I was in Dorchester, Massachusetts, meeting with parents about an after school program, which has been in effect for a number of years. It's going to be expanded. The mayor of Boston calls it the 2- to-6 program, and is trying to make available, in all parts of Boston, after-school programs for children. It is a very ambitious program. We have seen our Republican Governor indicate that he is supporting the after-school program. I listened to the parents who were out there, who talked about what happens after their children are 12 years old. The State of Massachusetts has a program that provides modest support for this kind of program for children up to 12 years old, but cuts it off there. Parents with tears in their eyes were saying, ``We work hard trying to provide for our families, and we just can't make it. Our children are going home and staying in an empty house in the afternoon.'' They pray that they are not going to get themselves in trouble, that the worst thing that will happen to them is they will just watch television. It might cost those parents $5 or $10 a week, maybe $20 a month to be able to have an after-school program. I expect that any single mom getting an increase in the minimum wage wouldn't think that much of a problem. That is happening in many communities in this country.