[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2853-S2854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE IS A BAD IDEA

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to some of the 
statements that were made by our colleagues from Massachusetts, who 
said we should increase the minimum wage. I will make a couple of 
editorial comments because I do not know that we need to debate it at 
this time, but I feel a need to respond to some of the statements made 
on the floor of the Senate.
  The implication was that if we do not increase the minimum wage, we 
do not care about low-income people. I find that to be offensive. That 
attempts to show that maybe those of us who oppose raising the minimum 
wage are not only insensitive, but we do not care about poor people or 
something. I disagree with that. Maybe we should turn that argument 
around. Maybe those of us who care more about poor people should 
increase the minimum wage to $10, $15, or $20 an hour. I would like for 
everybody in America to make $20 an hour. But is the proper way to do 
it to pass a law that says it is against the law for you to have a job 
if you do not make that? That is what our colleagues from Massachusetts 
are doing. They want to offer an amendment that says it is against the 
law for you to have a job unless it pays $5.15 an hour. They do not 
care if the job is in rural Missouri or Oklahoma. Maybe every job in 
Massachusetts pays that much. I do not care if the State of 
Massachusetts passes a minimum wage law for any figure. That is their 
prerogative. But to pass a law that makes it effective in my State and 
all across the country and says it is against the Federal law to have a 
job that pays less than $5.15, I think is a serious mistake.
  Who does it hurt? I think it would hurt the very people they propose 
to help. It would be telling a lot of people who are low income, who 
have a job that maybe does not pay much, it pays minimum wage--by 
definition, that is not much, but at least they have a job--and we are 
going to say, unless that job pays at least $5.15 an hour, we do not 
think you should have that job. As a matter of fact, it is against the 
law, against the Federal law for you to have a job unless it pays that 
amount. I totally disagree with that.
  I just have to say that I do not understand the effort made to have 
this amendment on this bill. We have a lands bill up. We have a bill 
that deals with Presidio, deals with the land exchange in Oklahoma and 
Arkansas, and we have a bill dealing with Utah wilderness. It is a 
complicated bill. I compliment my colleague from Alaska, Senator 
Murkowski, for his leadership on this bill.
  What does the minimum wage amendment have to do with this bill? 
Nothing--except for politics. I will say it has something to do with 
politics. My colleagues said that we have not had an increase in the 
minimum wage since 1989--7 years. Wait a minute. The Democrats were in 
control of the Senate and the House and the White House in the years 
1993 and 1994. Why did they not have the bill on the floor then? The 
majority leader, Senator Mitchell, at that time could have brought it 
up. But he did not. Why? Well, they were trying to have a big increase 
in the minimum wage because they wanted to mandate a very expensive 
health care plan on America. Maybe they figured they could not do both. 
They controlled the agenda. The Senator from Massachusetts could have 
offered that amendment, and he did not do it. We did not have a vote in 
1993 and 1994 when President Clinton and the Democrats were in control. 
But we are having one today.
  I noticed a coincidence in today's paper, the Washington Post. The 
headline is, ``AFL-CIO Endorses Clinton, Approves $35 Million Political 
Program.'' They want to enact their agenda. This is on their agenda. My 
colleagues talked about special interests. I would say this is a pretty 
big special interest. I would say that all of their members make more 
than minimum wage. Maybe all of them do. There are a lot of people in 
rural Missouri or rural Oklahoma making minimum wage, and if you 
increase the minimum wage by a certain amount, you are going to be 
putting some people out of work. I do not know who, but I know there 
are some. I have been in rural areas that have grocery stores that are 
striving to stay alive because they had a big company come in, like 
Wal-Mart or somebody, a big competitor.
  Yes, they were paying $4.50 an hour or whatever the amount would be, 
and they are not making any money. But if

[[Page S2854]]

we mandate that they increase their minimum wage or whatever they are 
paying by 21 percent as proposed, you are going to be putting some of 
those jobs out, maybe put the business out.
  And what are these jobs? A lot of them are starting level jobs. I 
worked for minimum wage 27\1/2\ years ago. It was when my wife and I 
were first married. I worked for it before then as well. But I remember 
that was the best job we could get. We both worked. At that time I 
think the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, and was it enough? No. Did I 
want more? Yes. Did I learn part of the trade? And that trade at the 
time was a janitor service. Yes. And I started my own.
  So the minimum wage was not so much a minimum wage as it was a 
starting wage. It helped me learn a craft or business, and I was able 
to start a business. I employed more people and they made more than the 
minimum wage. But what we are doing, if we increase the minimum wage 
significantly, what we are going to be doing is telling all people if 
your job does not pay at least this amount, it is against the law for 
you to have a job, we are going to pull up the economic ladder. The 
Federal Government is determined if your job does not pay that amount, 
you should not have it; it is against the Federal law.
  I think that is wrong. That is the heavy hand of the Federal 
Government coming in and saying we know best. We know you should be 
making more. Now, what is right in Boston, MA, may not be what is right 
in my hometown of Ponca City, OK.
  So I just really disagree with this idea of big Government knows 
best; we are going to mandate, we are going to tell everybody what to 
do and act like there are no economic consequences whatsoever.
  Sure, there are economic consequences. You are going to be pricing 
some jobs--maybe the job is pumping gas--out of the market. That is one 
of the first jobs that a lot of my group growing up were working at. 
You do not see that anymore. Most of the gas stations are self-serve. 
That may not be the greatest job in the world, but I would rather have 
that young person coming in and getting a start and maybe learning the 
fact this is not good enough; I cannot make enough money, so maybe I 
need to go back and complete high school or maybe I need to go into vo-
tech or maybe I need to go get some additional training. That is all 
part of the educational process.
  We say, ``Oh, no. If the job doesn't pay over $5.15 an hour, you 
can't have it; it is wrong.'' Or maybe the job is sacking groceries. 
You do not see many jobs like that. We used to have those jobs. The 
Federal Government is going to put people out of business and back on 
the streets, people who need that job training.
  A lot of people in Boston, a lot of people in different parts of the 
country need that first job. That first job teaches them a lot more 
than just the dollar amount. And we should give them that opportunity. 
We should not be pulling the economic ladder up and saying, no, if it 
does not pay that much, it is not worth it; you go ahead and stay home. 
And, yes, so what if you are 16 years old and you do not have anything 
else to do, just stay home. And then what happens? A lot of those idle 
people say, well, I need some money. How can I make money? Maybe I can 
make money running drugs, maybe I can make money stealing things, 
whatever. A lot of people get into trouble because they have time on 
their hands.
  That is a mistake. We should not price them out of the marketplace, 
and that is what is being proposed.
  And then some of our colleagues say, well, there are no economic 
consequences whatsoever. This is not going to mean an increase in 
unemployment. I think it just defies the law of supply and demand. If 
there are no negative economic consequences by a 21-percent increase in 
the minimum wage, why not increase it 50 percent? Why not increase it 
100 percent? Maybe we should have a perfecting amendment that says the 
minimum wage will be $10 an hour?
  That is all right. If you work 2,080 hours a year, that is $20,000 a 
year. I think that would be nice. I would like for everybody to make 
$20,000 a year. So maybe we should perfect this amendment. If you are 
not going to have any negative consequences by a 21-percent increase in 
the minimum wage, let us make it 100 percent, make it $10 an hour. I 
just think that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Common sense would 
say, hey, this is going to cause some problems for some people and 
those some people are going to be the people on the lowest end of the 
economic scale that maybe are trying to crawl that ladder and we are 
going to pull the ladder up. We should not do that.
  I wish to make a couple of comments. Yes, there are negative economic 
consequences. CBO said that this is an unfunded mandate on cities and 
counties and States and tribes of about $1 billion over the next few 
years. They said it is an unfunded mandate on the private sector to the 
tune of over $12 billion for the next few years.
  The real problem is that this is going to be telling a lot of young 
people we are sorry; if you cannot find a job that pays this much, we 
do not want you to have a job; it is against the law for you to have a 
job. That is a mistake. I think that is a serious mistake. We should 
not do that.
  So I will urge my colleague at the appropriate time to oppose this 
amendment if and when it is offered. It does not belong in this bill. 
Some people are kind of frustrated Congress does not get its business 
done, and on occasion I may join that frustration. But this amendment 
is for politics because the leaders of organized labor are in town, 
because the leaders of organized labor are endorsing Clinton and 
promising record amounts, record amounts, $35 million in political 
campaign contributions. This is special interest legislation and the 
real problem is the real people it will hurt will be low-income people 
who need jobs.
  So I will urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Oklahoma 
relative to his concern over what the minimum wage will do if there is 
an increase. And I believe the increase proposed by the Senator from 
Massachusetts is from $4.25 to $5.15. That is about 45 cents I believe 
over a 2-year period.

                          ____________________