[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.
____________________